Per Smt. Wadhwa :

Brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. The appellants herein, M/s. Boskalis Dredging India Pvt. Ltd. entered into a Contract with M/s. Paradip Port Trust for dredging of a Coal Handling Berth. For this purpose, the appellant firm imported an old and used Cutter Suction Dredger in operational condition together with its equipment and other functional items. The appellants filed six different bills of entry in respect of different types of items imported along with the main body of the Dredger. These items can be broadly categorised as Dredger; Pipes c/w flanges; Rings & Nuts and Bolts; Anchors; Pontoons; Delivery Valves, Spuds, Cutter Heads, Truck Tyres for use as Fenders; various Spare Parts and Consumable Stores.

2. The various items in respect of which different bills of entries were filed by the appellant company are as under :-

3. The appellant firm claimed classification of all the above items under Chapter Sub-Heading 8905.10 and 'nil' rate of duty in terms of Notification Nos. 133/87-Cus dated 19.3.87 and 106/92-Cus dated 1.3.92. The goods were initially assessed to duty provisionally pending submission of R.B.I. Certificate regarding foreign exchange transaction. One OH Dredger Anchor Handling Pontoon Type and one Cutter Suction Dredger were assessed at 'nil' rate of duty by extending the benefit of Notification No. 133/87. However, dispute arose in respect of other items as to whether the same are parts of the Dredger liable to be extended the benefit of notification in question or the same are required to be assessed separately and individually under their respective headings attracting duty. The appellants' claim is that all the items imported by the two different vessels though covered under different invoices showing separate prices of each item and though covered under different bills of entry essentially comprise a complete Dredger and merit classification under Sub-Heading 89.05 and as such, attract Notification No. 133/87. The appellants' claim is that the Dredger being a huge item cannot be imported in its complete form and as such, the same was despatched by their parent company, M/s. Boskalis of Netherlands in semi-knocked-down condition.

4. After the due process of adjudication, Assistant Commissioner vide his impugned order allowed the benefit of Notification in respect of Cutter Suction Dredger only. All other items were held to be classifiable under various heads of Tariff, as proposed in the notice and attracting the higher rates of duty. Benefit of Notification No. 106/92-Cus dated 1.3.92 was also denied in respect of the spares as the same were held not to be of the type used for repairing of Dredger as the same were hand-tools, safety helmets, gloves, refrigerators, crockeries and miscellaneous other consumables etc. Appeal against the above order of the Assistant Commissioner also failed before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his impugned order dated 31.12.96 upheld the same. Hence the present appeal before the Tribunal.

5. Appearing on behalf of the appellants, Shri G.L. Rawal, learned Advocate did not dispute the order of the authorities below relatable to the general purpose items and consumables held to be outside the scope of Notification Nos. 133/87 and 106/92-Cus. by the authorities below. He restricted his claim t