TMI Blog1986 (11) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring No. 115 to 119/77 dated 27-4-1977 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund), New Delhi. The Revision Application was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal for disposal as appeal. 2. As per practice followed in this Tribunal four supplementary appeals were later on filed, which have been listed for hearing alongwith main Revision Application before us today. 3. We have heard Shri A.C. Jain, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri J. Gopinath, learned S.D.R. for the respondent. 4. The appellants imported five consignments containing parts of Industrial Sewing Machine, vide Bills of Entry Nos. 5683 dated 22-4-1976, 6718 dated 22-5-1976, 6997 dated 3-6-1976, 6998 and 6999 dated 3-6-1976. In the supporting invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... customs control. Importer s contention that the same were usable in machines operated with 1/4 H.P. could not be verified at that stage. Appeal filed by the appellants before the Appellate Collector of Customs were also rejected on similar grounds. Hence, the present revision application, which is now before us for disposal as appeal. 5. We have considered the case record placed before us and the arguments of Shri Jain and Shri Gopinath. At the relevant time Item 72(11) read as follows :- 72(11) Sewing Machines to be worked by manual labour or which require for their operation less than one quarter brake horsepower, and parts of such sewing machines :- (a) the head, whether with or without the hand attachment; (b) other parts, inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Bills of Entry covered by the present appeals. All the invoices submitted before us show that the parts related to Industrial Sewing Machine TA-1 Type which were worked by 1/4 H.P. Invoices were available before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment of the goods. It was, therefore, incumbent on him to find out as to whether description in the invoice was correct or not. We find that the assessing officer did not challenge the description as per invoice, but on the other hand assessed the goods under Tariff Item 72(11) I.C.T. which is meant for sewing machine operated on motor less than l/4 H.P. Viewed from the description of the goods in the invoice, the assessment under this tariff item was obviously incorrect. 7. In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
