TMI Blog1988 (12) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollector of Customs whose order was confirmed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, although be did not entirely agree with the reasons advanced by the Assistant Collector. It is against this order of Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay that appellants are now before us. 2. We have heard Shri M.A. Rangaswamy, Advocate on behalf of the appellants and Shri K. Kumar, SDR, for the department. 3. The learned advocate says that the issue involved in the present matter is fully covered against revenue by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Kinetic Engineering Ltd. v Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1988 (37) E.L.T. 61 (Tri.) = 1988 (18) ECR 143 (Cegat SB - B2). 4. The learned SDR responds briefly by stating that the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the department s case is that the machine imported is not accurate enough to perform all the functions enumerated under S. No. 9 of Notification 49/78. Regarding another universal measuring instrument Validator 10", the Madras IIT had advised that the accuracy of that instrument was not sufficient for checking gauges and precision jigs and fixtures. This is because the readout accuracy" of Validator was either 0.005 mm or 0.01. The catalogue in this case also shows that the readout accuracy is 0.005 along the Y plane and 0.007 mm along X plane. Therefore, in this case also, it would follow that the accuracy was not sufficient for checking gauges and precision jigs and fixtures, the department held. 7. It would be seen, therefore, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clear finding on the view taken at the level of the Assistant Collector that the machine under reference could not perform all the functions mentioned at S. No. 9 of Notification No. 49/78, except with the help of other optional accessories. We find no answer in respect of these points in the order of Collector (Appeals). 9. It is also urged before us that Validator 10, in respect of which the Madras IIT had expressed an opinion, is a very old machine and crude in design whereas the instrument imported in this case is a highly sophisticated and modern one. We do feel that if the view of Madras IIT could have been obtained in the case of Validator 10, then it could also have been obtained in respect of the instrument imported in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
