2001 (6) TMI 489

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g to the same conclusion that the accessories imported by the appellants are component parts in terms of definition given in the EXIM policy. They also relied on the Ministry's clarification and in the Appeal No. 655/2000, the Commissioner has also relied on Final Order No. 2294/99, dated 6-9-1999 as well as Larger Bench judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Jindal Strips v. CC [1997 (94) E.L.T. 234 (T-LB)] and that of Metal Impacts Pvt. Ltd. v. CC [1993 (64) E.L.T. 286]. 2. Ld. DR Shri S. Arumugam very forcefuly and vehemently argues that there is no dispute in the case that the item imported was accessories. The notification in question clearly refers to "component parts of machine tools for making metals". Therefore, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the definition of 'component parts' is not defined in the Notification and therefore they have to rely upon the definition as appearing in EXIM Policy which clearly includes within the definition of 'component parts' accessories also. This has been supported by the Ministry's clarification and the judgment of Larger Bench in the case of Jindal Strips which clarified that 'spares' are required to be considered as 'component parts'. He further referred to invoices as well as the Bill of Entries wherein the authorities have considered the item to be as 'part' of the main machine even though they have declared it as 'accessories'. He submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and in view of the Final Order No. 2294/99, dated 6-....