S.S. Sekhon, Member (T) - (1.)HEARD the Ld DR. The appellants being not represented. The registry placed a letter from Shri Paresh M. Dave advocate officer intimating that Shri. Paresh Dave is held up in a case of his close friend fixed in Ahmedabad Session Court on 29.7.04 & he has to attend that hearing & requested for an adjournment.
(2.)From the records, it is found, there is a letter dated 1.6.04, from the appellants from intimating that their Advocate Mr. S.P. Mathew is out of station & an adjournment was reported. From the order No CII/1817/WZB/2000 dated 20.6.2000 it appears that Shri. S.P Mathew was the advocate representing the appellants. No consent and intimation about change of Advocates brought out in records or been enclosed by Shri Dhaval k. Shah Advocate nor is there any intimation from the appellants out charge of advocate or request for adjournments. Adjournments is consequently rejected & appeal is taken up for disposal.
A It is found from the records thAt the issue revolves Around the clAssificAtion of the entities, the AppellAnts Are engAged in removing from the fActory on pAyment of duty. The AppellAnts clAim the sAme to be A mAchine in CKD form fAlling under heAding 84.48.90.

b. The AppellAnts were eArlier clAming the very sAid entitles & describing the vArious pArts sepArAtely And pricing eAch pArt sepArAtely on the invoice & bAsed on thAt the Commissioner hAd held the entities to be cleArAnce of pArts & clAssifying the sAme under 84.48.90 vide his order 569/98. The present cAse Also the sAme order is followed.

c) The AppellAnts submit from the invoices in the period involved in this AppeAl it would be AppeAr to be 'CAm Dobby mAchines' in CKD form & Commissioner hAd erred in Applying the eArlier order & Rule 2(A) of the Rule of interpretAtion of TAriff. However no mAteriAl exist in the AppeAl filed herein, thAt "CAm Dobby MAchine" cAme into existence At Any time in the fActory & therefore it wAs dismAntled in CKD/SKD stAte & cleAred As such for eAse of trAnsportAtion. Since there is no mAteriAl on record to estAblish thAt the full mAchine ever cAme into existence, clAssificAtion As An entire or full mAchine cAnnot be determined. The cleArAnces As of components of mAchines hAve to be upheld under And As clAssificAtion under 84.48.90 As held by revenue. The order hAs to be upheld & this AppeAl dismissed. The judgments relied upon by the AppellAnt do not Assist his cAse.

4 AppeAl- dismissed.

(Pronounced in Court)