Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1987 1987 (7) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 81 to 100 of 374 Records

• 1987 (7) TMI 448
  
  Issues Involved:
  
  1. Classification of imported stapling machines.
  2. Eligibility for concessional assessment under Notifications Nos. 47/84-Cus. and 16/85-Cus.
  3. Interpretation of the term "packing machines" in the context of the Customs Tariff Act.
  
  Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Classification of Imported Stapling Machines:
  
  The appellants imported various types of stapling machines under three Bills of Entry. The Assistant Collector classified these machines under different headings of Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff Act (CTA), rejecting the appellants' request for concessional assessment as "packing machines" or "case packing machines" under Notifications Nos. 47/84-Cus. and 16/85-Cus. The Collector (Appeals) later upheld the importers' contention that the goods were "packing machines" eligible for concessional assessment, leading to the present appeals by the Revenue.
  
  2. Eligibility for Concessional Assessment:
  
  The Revenue argued that the imported stapling machines are used only for closing bags and not for filling materials, which should be the primary function of "packing machines" as per the Customs Tariff Act. The Collector (Appeals) held that the term "packing machines" was not defined in Notification 16/85 and should be interpreted according to trade parlance. The Revenue contended that the term should be interpreted with reference to the Customs Tariff Act and its chapter and section notes. They argued that the stapling machines should have functions similar to those falling under Heading 84.19, which specifically mentions "packing machines."
  
  3. Interpretation of the Term "Packing Machines":
  
  The Collector (Appeals) considered the dictionary meaning of "packing machines" and "case packing machines" due to the lack of definitions in the Notifications. He concluded that a "packing machine" is an instrument or product used to make things into a package or bundle. The Collector noted that polythene bags, often used for packing ready garments, are sealed by heat or stapling. The Collector extended the benefit of Notification No. 47/84 to models TH52 and TGD, considering their possible use in case packing despite the absence of specific mention in the leaflets.
  
  Separate Judgments:
  
  The Tribunal examined the arguments and literature, noting that the staplers imported have specific uses, including packing and case-packing. The respondents cited a judgment of the Madras High Court, which dealt with staple pins used in similar staplers for packing garments. The High Court noted that the Department conceded the use of staple pins in staplers for packing garments, supporting the respondents' argument.
  
  The Tribunal found no flaw in the Collector's reasoning and agreed that the staplers are capable of being used in packing. The Tribunal observed that staplers could be both office machines and packing machines, and the Notifications did not restrict goods from being classified under headings other than 84.19. The goods met the criteria of falling under Chapter 84 CTA and being packing machines or case packing machines.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The appeals were dismissed, affirming the Collector (Appeals)' decision that the imported staplers are eligible for concessional assessment under Notifications Nos. 47/84-Cus. and 16/85-Cus.

  ---

• 1987 (7) TMI 447
  
  Issues: Classification of goods under Item 22-A or Item 22-G of the Tariff Schedule.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved the classification of flocked hessian fabric manufactured by a company under the Tariff Schedule. The dispute arose when the Department classified the product under Item 22-G, while the company contended that it should be classified under Item 22-A. The Appellate Collector initially classified the product under Item 22-A but left an ambiguity in the final classification. The Department argued for the classification under Item 22-G, emphasizing that the product did not qualify as a floor covering under Item 22-G due to its intended use in automobiles as car mats. The Department failed to provide evidence supporting the assertion that the product could be used as a floor covering. The Appellate Tribunal concurred with the company's argument that the product did not qualify as a floor covering under Item 22-G, thus rejecting the Department's contention that the product should be reclassified under Item 22-G.
  
  The Department further argued that even if the product did not qualify as a carpet, it should be classified as carpeting under Item 22-G since it was manufactured in running lengths. However, the Tribunal found that the product did not exhibit the characteristics of a floor covering or carpeting intended for use as such. The Tribunal highlighted the absence of evidence supporting the Department's claim that the product could be used as a normal carpet or floor covering. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Department's argument for reclassification under Item 22-G based on the product being considered as carpeting.
  
  Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Appellate Collector, confirming the classification of the product under Item 22-A of the Tariff Schedule. The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal, emphasizing that the product did not meet the criteria for classification under Item 22-G as a floor covering, carpet, or carpeting. The judgment clarified the classification of the product and resolved the dispute regarding its appropriate categorization under the Tariff Schedule.

  ---

• 1987 (7) TMI 446
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi heard a case where appellants imported "Desmodur R" and claimed duty refund under Notification No. 206/76-Cus for exclusive use in ammunition manufacturing. The Tribunal found the chemical was used in ammunition production and granted the appeal.

  ---

• 1987 (7) TMI 445
  
  The appeal was transferred to the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. The issue was whether imported moulded lens blanks were liable for additional customs duty. The Tribunal decided the goods were liable for duty under item 23A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The appeal was dismissed.

  ---

• 1987 (7) TMI 444
  
  Issues: Classification of jute fabrics laminated with PVC under Item 22-A CET or Item 22-B CET.
  
  In this case, the appellants, M/s. National Leather Cloth Manufacturing Company, sought classification of their jute fabrics laminated with PVC under Item 22-A CET, but the Assistant Collector classified it under Item 22-B. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld this classification. The main issue is whether the product should be classified under Item 22-A or Item 22-B of the Central Excise Tariff (CET).
  
  The argument presented by the appellants is that the product should be classified under Item 22-A as it covers jute manufactures, and since jute predominates by weight in the product, it should fall under this category. On the other hand, the Department argues that the product should be classified under Item 22-B, which covers textile fabrics impregnated, coated, or laminated if not specified elsewhere. The key consideration is whether the product falls specifically under one item or the other, or if it could potentially fall under both, necessitating a determination of which is more specific.
  
  The appellants rely on Notification No. 53/65-C.E., which exempted rot-proofed, laminated, and fire-resistant jute products falling under Item 22-A. They argue that this notification indicates that the government considered laminated jute fabrics to qualify under Item 22-A. However, the Department points out that Notification No. 250/77-C.E. granted exemption under Item 22-B for fire-resistant products made with unprocessed jute, suggesting that laminated jute fabrics may not be classified as jute manufactures under Item 22-A.
  
  Another argument raised is regarding the explanation to Item 22-A, which the Department interprets as requiring the predominance of jute fiber over other fibers in the product, not over non-fibrous components like PVC. The Tribunal disagrees with this interpretation, stating that Item 22-A explicitly requires the predominance of jute fiber for inclusion under that category.
  
  Ultimately, the Tribunal rules in favor of the Department, upholding the classification of the product under Item 22-B. They conclude that since the product is jute fabric laminated with PVC, it falls under the category of laminated textile fabrics specified in Item 22-B. The reliance on past notifications is deemed irrelevant, as the introduction and subsequent amendment of Item 22-B make it clear that the product should be classified under that item. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the orders of the lower authorities are upheld.

  ---

• 1987 (7) TMI 443
  
  Issues:
  1. Violation of principles of natural justice in the adjudication process.
  2. Denial of fair hearing by the Collector.
  3. Request for adjournment not considered properly.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The judgment involves two appeals against the same order-in-original. The appellants contended that the principles of natural justice were violated during the adjudication process. The proceedings began in 1977, with personal hearings before different Collectors. The final Collector did not provide copies of earlier hearing records despite requests, leading to a violation of natural justice. The appellants argued that without these records, they couldn't ensure all submissions were duly recorded, justifying their request. The failure to provide records and proceed with adjudication was deemed a breach of natural justice by the Tribunal.
  
  2. The Collector's comment on the appellants adopting dilatory tactics was deemed unjustified. The appellants had requested copies of records after various delays in the adjudication process, including a personal hearing fixed more than two years later. The Tribunal found the appellants' requests reasonable, considering the prolonged process and the need to review earlier submissions. The Collector's failure to respond to these requests and proceed with adjudication without addressing them was seen as haste, error, and a violation of natural justice.
  
  3. In the case of the second appellant, a request for adjournment was made due to a change in personnel handling the matter and the age of the case. The appellants sought time to gather relevant documents, but the Collector proceeded with adjudication without granting the adjournment or informing the appellants. The Tribunal found the denial of adjournment unjustified, especially considering the circumstances and the timely nature of the request. The failure to communicate the decision on adjournment and proceeding with adjudication without proper consideration led to a denial of a fair hearing.
  
  In conclusion, both appeals were allowed, setting aside the Collector's order and remitting the matter for fresh adjudication to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice and fair hearing.

  ---

• 1987 (7) TMI 442
  
  Issues:
  1. Eligibility for benefits under Notification 119/75-CE.
  2. Allegation of suppression of facts by the company.
  3. Time-barred demand for duty payment.
  
  Eligibility for benefits under Notification 119/75-CE:
  The case involved the manufacturing of Zinc Calots by the respondents, who paid duty on conversion charges after availing duty exemption under Notification 119/75-CE. The dispute arose when the Revenue alleged that the product cleared differed from the goods given for job work and that the respondents suppressed materials. The Appellate Collector held that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the notification, considering the negligible amount of job workers' raw material used. The Tribunal analyzed the issue, emphasizing that the benefit of the notification should be assessed based on the facts of each case. Referring to previous judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the use of a negligible quantity of cadmium should not deny the benefit of the notification, as the requirements of Notification 119/75-CE were met.
  
  Allegation of suppression of facts by the company:
  The Revenue alleged suppression of facts by the company to avoid duty payment, but the Assistant Collector did not find any such suppression or impose a penalty. The Tribunal noted that the absence of a penalty indicated that the Assistant Collector was satisfied with the company's actions. One of the judges expressed reservations about the conclusions on job work under Notification 119/75-CE but emphasized that the demand was unenforceable due to being time-barred and lacking evidence of suppression. The judgment highlighted that without a penalty or specific findings of suppression, the demand could not be enforced.
  
  Time-barred demand for duty payment:
  The Tribunal found that the demand for duty payment was time-barred, as the show cause notice was issued beyond the statutory period. One judge emphasized that without evidence of suppression or penalty imposed by the Assistant Collector, the demand could not be enforced. The judgment concluded that there were no grounds to set aside the order, ultimately dismissing the appeal.
  
  In summary, the judgment focused on the eligibility for duty exemption under Notification 119/75-CE, the absence of evidence supporting the allegation of suppression of facts, and the time-barred nature of the demand for duty payment, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

  ---

• 1987 (7) TMI 441
  
  Issues:
  - Whether coal briquettes produced by the appellants are liable to Central Excise duty.
  - Under what Tariff item are the coal briquettes liable for Central Excise duty.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The appeal concerned the liability of coal briquettes to Central Excise duty and the appropriate Tariff item for such duty. The appellants converted coal into powder form, added molasses as a binding material, and formed coal briquettes through a mixing and pressing process for use as fuel. The authorities held the process amounted to manufacture, imposing duty under Tariff item No. 68 CET and a penalty. The appellants contended that their process did not constitute manufacture as no new material was added, citing relevant case laws.
  
  2. The appellants argued that the addition of molasses served as a binding agent, maintaining the original coal's character and use. The Ld. Consultant referenced various judgments, including those by the Supreme Court and High Courts, emphasizing that mere change in form or structure does not necessarily constitute manufacture. The appellants relied on case laws to support their position that their process did not result in a new identifiable product.
  
  3. The Respondent, opposing the appellants' arguments, relied on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the three criteria to determine manufacture: a different name, character, and use of the final product. The Respondent contended that the coal briquettes met these criteria as they had a distinct name, character, and use compared to coal dust. The Respondent distinguished the appellants' case from the cited judgments, emphasizing the unique characteristics of coal briquettes.
  
  4. The Tribunal analyzed various precedents, including cases related to blending ore, crushing pyrites, dilution of resin, and sawing timber, to determine the threshold for constituting manufacture. The Tribunal highlighted instances where processes did not result in new products due to the continuity of the original material's identity. The Tribunal concluded that the conversion of coal dust into coal briquettes did not amount to manufacture, as the essential characteristics of coal remained unchanged.
  
  5. The Tribunal referenced the Allahabad High Court judgment in a similar case involving coke briquettes, emphasizing that a mere change in shape or structure does not create a new commodity. The Tribunal aligned its decision with the High Court's ruling and the principles established in the cited judgments. Ultimately, the Tribunal accepted the appellants' arguments, ruling that no manufacture occurred when converting coal dust into coal briquettes, thereby allowing the appeal and relieving the appellants from Central Excise duty liability.

  ---

• 1987 (7) TMI 440
  
  The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, in 1987 (7) TMI 440, involved a dispute over the excisability of RCC poles manufactured by different units. The argument that the poles are not sold does not exempt them from excise duty. The Tribunal ruled that the poles, once fixed in the ground, are still excisable goods. The appeal was rejected.

  ---

• 1987 (7) TMI 439
  
  Issues: Classification of M.S. Rivets under Central Excise Tariff
  
  Comprehensive Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Classification of M.S. Rivets under Central Excise Tariff
  The case involved the classification of M.S. Rivets manufactured by M/s. Eastern Industries under the Central Excise Tariff. The Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta confirmed the duty demand but did not require the respondents to obtain a license or impose any penalty. On appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) accepted the case of the respondents regarding Bright Drawn Bars but held that the rivets, even if made from M.S. rounds by forging process, could no longer be classified as Iron and Steel Products under T.I. 26-AA(ia) and should be classified under Item 68 CET. The appeal was filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta against this order.
  
  Issue 2: Interpretation of Manufacturing Process for Rivets
  The process of manufacturing rivets involved cutting the rod to the required length, die-forging to form the hemispherical head, and finning the other end to form the tapering end. The Department argued that the rivets should be classified under Item 26-AA(ia) CET as a forged shape not otherwise specified. However, the respondents relied on a letter from the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which clarified that shapes and sections would exclude items that had assumed the character of any specified article. It was determined that the rivets, despite being formed by the die-forging process, did not fall within the expression of shapes and sections not otherwise specified due to being distinctly known products with their specific name.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Appellate Tribunal held that the rivets manufactured by M/s. Eastern Industries were properly classifiable under Item 68 CET during the relevant period and not under Item 26-AA(ia). As the appeal was solely related to the order concerning the classification of rivets, it was dismissed based on the conclusion reached regarding the classification issue.

  ---

• 1987 (7) TMI 438
  
  Issues:
  1. Refund claim based on classification under different Tariff items.
  2. Delay in appeal presentation and condonation.
  3. Classification of the product as Ball Bearing Bobbin Holders.
  4. Interpretation of classification under Tariff Item 15A(2) CET.
  5. Comparison with relevant case law - Geep Flash Light Industries Ltd.
  6. Final decision on the classification of the product.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. The appellants filed a refund claim based on the argument that duty was paid under T.I. 68 CET, but the product (Ball Bearing Bobbin Holders) should have been classified under Tariff item 15A(2) CET. The claim was initially rejected by the Assistant Collector and subsequently by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), leading to this appeal.
  
  2. During the appeal proceedings, a delay of 3 days in the presentation of the appeal was noted. The appellants requested condonation of the delay, which was granted after hearing both sides. Subsequently, arguments on the merits of the case were heard, focusing on the classification of the product in question.
  
  3. The product under consideration, the Ball Bearing Bobbin Holder, was claimed by the appellants to be known as a plastic ball bearing bobbin holder. It was revealed that the product contained 28% plastics by weight and the rest non-plastics. The appellants argued that the product could be classified under item 15A(2) CET even if not wholly made of plastics.
  
  4. The appellants cited various tariff advices and a decision of the Gujarat High Court to support their contention that products with a mix of plastic and non-plastic components could still be classified under item 15A(2) CET. However, the Department representative referred to a Supreme Court decision in Geep Flash Light Industries Ltd., highlighting the requirement that articles classified under item 15A(2) CET must be wholly made of plastic, not a combination of plastic and other materials.
  
  5. The Supreme Court's decision in Geep Flash Light Industries Ltd. clarified that items under item 15A(2) CET must be made wholly of plastic, not a combination of plastic and other materials. As the product in question contained 28% plastic and 72% non-plastic materials, it was deemed properly classified under Tariff Item 68 CET, not under item 15A(2) CET.
  
  6. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the interpretation of the classification criteria under Tariff Item 15A(2) CET as per the Supreme Court's decision, affirming that the product in question did not meet the requirements for classification under that item.

  ---

• 1987 (7) TMI 437
  
  The judgment concerns the classification of "hospital sheeting" or "mackintosh" as either rubber products or cotton fabrics subjected to rubberizing. The Tribunal held that the product falls under Item No. 16-A(2) of the Tariff Schedule as rubber products, based on previous decisions. The appeals were dismissed, upholding the classification under Item No. 16-A(2).

  ---

• 1987 (7) TMI 418
  
  Premier Engineering Corporation appealed a customs duty assessment on stainless steel circles, claiming they should be assessed differently. The appeal was rejected by the Appellate Collector and later by the Tribunal, citing a relevant judgment from the Madras High Court. The Tribunal upheld the previous decisions, dismissing the appeal. (Case Citation: 1987 (7) TMI 418 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI)

  ---

• 1987 (7) TMI 417
  
  The case involved the classification of "NISSIN Brand Thread Take up Liver" for Model DB-1 Sewing Machine. Customs classified it under Heading 84.41(2) as parts of domestic sewing machine, but the appellants sought re-classification under sub-heading (1) for Industrial Sewing Machine parts. The lower authorities rejected the claim based on horsepower criteria, but the Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the imported goods eligible for classification under sub-heading (1) of Heading 84.41.

  ---

• 1987 (7) TMI 416
  
  The appeal was filed against the order of the Collector (Appeals) for procedural defects. The delay in filing the appeals was condoned. The Collector (Appeals) dismissed the appeals due to missing court-fee stamps and orders appealed against. The Tribunal set aside the orders and directed re-hearing, allowing the appellants to rectify the defects.

  ---

• 1987 (7) TMI 415
  
  The Revenue appealed against the order of the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta regarding duty payment on forged rivets. The Respondents manufactured rivets out of duty-paid materials and claimed exemption under a rescinded notification. The Appellate Tribunal held that rivets cannot be subject to further duty if made from duty-paid materials. The Tribunal rejected the appeal and disposed of the Cross Objection, citing the applicability of proforma credit for steel forgings.

  ---

• 1987 (7) TMI 414
  
  Issues: Classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff - Whether the goods should be classified as consumer goods or as mathematical drawing pens.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment pertains to the classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff. The Collector (Appeals) had set aside the orders of confiscation of the lower authority for importing the goods without a valid import license. The goods in question were described as drawing/writing pen points or mapping pen points, invoiced with relevant code numbers. The tribunal observed that the nibs required insertion into a holder for drawing sketches, indicating the items were essentially sketching pens. Two alternative headings were considered for classification: headings 90.16 and 98.03/09. Heading 98.03/09 covers pens and pencils of all sorts and parts thereof, while heading 90.16 pertains to drawing instruments, marking out tools, and mathematical calculating instruments. The department emphasized that heading 98.04-CCCN includes pen nibs, supporting classification under heading 98.03/09 of the Customs Tariff.
  
  The tribunal found that heading 98.03/09 was more specific and, therefore, preferred for classification under Rule 3 of the Rules of Interpretation of the Customs Tariff. The tribunal disagreed with the Collector (Appeals) who had classified the goods under Item 90.16-CTA, arguing that the goods could not be considered stationery articles like writing pens. The tribunal concluded that the imported goods were essentially pen nibs falling under heading 98.04-CCCN (98.03/09-CTA), covering pen nibs with or without nib points for writing, drawing, lithography, or music writing. The respondents failed to establish the goods as parts of drawing instruments, leading to the tribunal allowing the appeal and ruling in favor of the department.

  ---

• 1987 (7) TMI 413
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of M/s. Kutty Flush Doors and Furniture Co. The Central Government ordered a refund of duty paid under Item No. 16B CET. The Tribunal held that the Revenue could not adjust duty under Item No. 68 CET against the refund without proper notice and re-assessment. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

  ---

• 1987 (7) TMI 412
  
  Issues:
  1. Maintainability of Revision Application under Section 35A.
  2. Classification of "Yellow Pickings" as waste cotton or cotton waste for duty exemption.
  
  Issue 1: Maintainability of Revision Application under Section 35A
  The appeal was against the dismissal of a Revision Application by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The Board dismissed the Revision Application on the grounds that Section 35A could not be used to bypass the three-month limitation for filing appeals under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The Board also noted that there was no apparent miscarriage of justice that needed correction through Section 35A. The appellants argued that the failure to file an appeal within the statutory limitation should not bar the filing of a revision application under Section 35A. The Tribunal found that the Board erred in holding the Revision Application as not maintainable. It highlighted that Section 36, which allows revision by the Central Government, requires that no appeal should lie from the decision or order being revised. In contrast, Section 35A, which provides for revision by the Board, does not have a similar stipulation. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Board's order and proceeded to decide the matter on merits.
  
  Issue 2: Classification of "Yellow Pickings"
  The key issue was whether "Yellow Pickings" should be classified as waste cotton or cotton waste for the purpose of duty exemption. The Collector had determined that "Yellow Pickings" were not cotton waste, leading to the denial of duty exemption for the cotton yarn manufactured from them. However, the Tribunal referred to a previous decision where it was found that cotton yarn manufactured from "Yellow Pickings" was eligible for duty exemption. Relying on this precedent, the Tribunal ruled that the cotton yarn produced by the appellants from "Yellow Pickings" was indeed entitled to duty exemption. Consequently, the penal action and duty demand imposed on the appellants were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the Revision Application under Section 35A was maintainable and proceeded to grant duty exemption to the cotton yarn manufactured from "Yellow Pickings." The decision was based on the classification of "Yellow Pickings" as cotton waste, following a previous ruling in a similar matter.

  ---

• 1987 (7) TMI 411
  
  The case involves the classification of Crank Shaft with spares under heading 84.63 CTA. The appellants sought re-classification under heading 84.11(1) CTA, arguing that the goods are parts of Air Pumps, not transmission systems. The Tribunal found that Crank Shaft is a transmission shaft specifically covered by 84.63 and dismissed the appeal. (1987 (7) TMI 411 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI)

  ---

123456789........ 19