Decided on June 23,1986



S. Duggal, Member - (1.)THE dispute in this case arises out of refund claim filed by the appellants on two counts. In the first instance, they claimed concessional rate of duty so far as basic customs duty is concerned under Notification No. 167/77, without auxiliary duty in terms of Notification No. 167/77. Secondly, they claimed assessment free of counter-vailing duty in regard to the item described as "Terminal strips", which was assessed for the purpose of CV duty under Tariff Item 23 (B) 4 of the CET whereas the appellants contended that these were part of electrical fitment of control box to be fitted in dumpers and as such would be treated as general items, and would be classifiable under TI 68 and since there was no CV duty at the time of import for TI 68 goods; the levy of the same was not sustainable.
2 This claim was rejected by the Asstt. Collector for want of necessary evidence by way of end-use affidavit and catalogue. While filing appeal before the Appellate Collector, the appellants seem to have forwarded the requisite end-use affidavit, but the appeal order reveals that that was not taken into consideration, and so emphasis was laid on the catalogue. THE appeal was rejected for want of the same.

3 THE appellants re-iterated in the revision application, which is now appeal before us, that the goods imported which are items "2 3 & 4" of the invoice were meant for initial assembly of the dumpers and hence as such end-use affidavit produced before the Appellate Collector was sufficient evidence of their claim, also re-iterated the claim for refund of CV duty in respect of 'terminal strips'.

4. Today, Shri V. Bhaskara Reddy, Stores Officer of the appellants has appeared and has placed before us a copy of the end-use affidavit which he states was forwarded to the Appellate Collector along with the ground of appeal and has also supplied a copy of the notification on which reliance was placed He has also produced a copy of an order of the Bench; being Order No. 217/85-B.2 dated 24.10.1985, where on a similar basis, namely, end-use affidavit having been produced subsequently, the appeal was allowed. Shri D.K. Saha, JDR concedes that the affidavit satisfies conditions of the notification, and that he has no further comments to offer. We, therefore, find that the Appellate Collector has erred in not taking into consideration the end-use affidavit filed before him under signatures of T.R. Pattabiraman, Production Managerof the appellants. We, taking this end-use affidavit, into consideration hold that the benefit of the two notifications in respect to three items, which appeared at Serial Nos. 2, 3 & 4, of the invoice was available, and accordingly concessional rate of basic duty and exemption of auxiliary duty could be allowed to the appellants for these goods. We, therefore, allow the appeal with consequential refund, to this extent.

5. So far as the claim for refund of CV duty in regard to 'terminal strips'is concerned, though Shri Reddy produced a photocopy of some diagram from a catalogue, but in the absence of supporting material, he did not press this part of the appeal. THE appeal in this respect is thus rejected.

6. THE appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.