TMI Blog1997 (5) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation of the parts/components of machinery which were classifiable under Heading No. 84.28 and Heading No. 84.29 of the Central Excise Tariff based on the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the `Tariff ). The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pune, had classified the said parts/components under Heading No. 84.31 of the Tariff. After discussing the matter in detail with reference to the relevant tariff entries and the rules of the interpretation and Section Notes, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, had confirmed the view taken by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise. 2. In Appeal No. E/3632/88-B1, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had observed that the appeal had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 84.28 and Heading No. 84.29 will be classifiable therein i.e. under Heading No. 84.31. 6. The appellants had referred to Section Note 4 under Section XVI of the Tariff which is extracted below : Where a machine (including a combination of machines) consists of individual components (whether separate or interconnected by piping, by transmission devices, by electric cables or by other devices) intended to contribute together to a clearly defined function covered by one of the headings in Chapter 84 or Chapter 85, then the whole falls to be classified in the heading appropriate to that function. 7. We consider that this Section Note is applicable only when a machine is for classification and that machine consisted of various, individua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise, Pune-II Division s Order RC/63/86-87, dated 4-6-1987 from M/s. Buckau Wolf, appellants have declined personal hearing and requested for deciding the case on records. As I go through the appeal petition I find that the impugned order does not contain facts necessary for deciding the case. It is only a letter addressed to the appellant saying that the refund claim is rejected as the same issue was already decided under the Order-in-Original F.No. RC/63/86-87, dated 21-8-1986. Appellants have failed to submit a copy of this order along with their appeal petition, and have also declined personal hearing. In the circumstances I have no option but to reject the appeal. 11. In the appeal memo, the appellants have stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
