9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Member (T)]. - In this appeal filed by M/s Cinetekk, the issue for our consideration is whether the reflectors for the cinematographic projectors were eligible for the concessional rate of customs duty under Notification No. 93/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986, as amended. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) in his findings had recorded as under : "On a careful reading of the Notification No. 93/86-Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he main equipments only, so far as Serial No. 3 above is concerned." 2. Shri K. Kumar, Advocate, appearing for the appellants, referred to the Tariff Circular No. 22/86 circulated by the Deputy Collector of Customs (Appg.), Customs House, Madras-1, in which the clarification by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi, under F. No. 528/162/86-Cus. (TU), dated 19-6-1986 had been circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the notification (.) Parts of cinematographic projectors would therefore be eligible for exemption." 3. In reply, Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR, stated that the exemption as held by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) was limited to the main equipment only and he reiterated the findings of the lower authority. 4. We have carefully considered the matter. The goods involved were parts of the cin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e excluded items under Column 4 of the table, aforesaid. We find that the parts of cinematographic projectors were also classifiable under Heading No. 90.07 which is covered by the description under Column 2 of the table, aforesaid. 6. Further, the Board's clarification is also relevant to the issue under consideration. 7. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) had referred that there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
