- (1.) The short question which is raised in this appeal relates to the interpretation of entry 58 of the Notification No. 118/80-Cus. Entry 58 reads as under : "(58) Automatic lead welding, lacquering, testing, colour coating, sorting and packing machine for resistors."
(2.) The facts are that the respondent imported three machines in two separate consignments and claimed benefits under entry 58 of the said notification. The case of the Department is that each of these machines were imported separately and between them the machines imported would do all jobs enumerated in the aforesaid entry 58 but each machine separately could not do all the jobs and as the word in this entry is 'Machine' not 'Machinery' no benefit could be given to the assessee. On the other hand contention of the learned counsel for the assessee is that word 'Machine' is to be read as 'Machines' to give true meaning to the notification and hence each of the machines referred to therein is entitled for exemption.
(3.) The appellate Collector accepted Revenue stand and held to the same effect that the machines imported by the respondent would do all the jobs enumerated in the aforesaid entry 58 but each machine separately could not do all the jobs. It further recorded that there seems to be slip in the issuance of the original notification. But, being a quasi-judicial authority, it can only interpret the law as it stands and cannot correct the law. Hence, interpreted the said notification to be for one single composite machine, so no benefit could be given, hence respondent's appeal was rejected. A revision was preferred by the assessee before the Central Government which was subsequently transferred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the revision. Aggrieved by this order Revenue has filed the present appeal.;