TMI Blog1985 (2) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The short point arising for consideration in this appeal, which was originally a Revision Petition before the Central Government, is as to whether the crankshafts, imported by the appellants herein by BE Cash No. 3602, dated 19-1-1977, were entitled to exemption from Customs duty in terms of Notification No. 395/76, dated 2-8-1976. The 12 cases of crankshafts, stated to be essential parts of Inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly for goods/parts falling under Tariff Item No. 84.06 of the CTA. 3. In the appeal before the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, assessability of the goods under Tariff Item No. 84.63 of the CTA was not disputed but claim to benefit of Notification No. 395/76 was pressed. It was urged that the goods qualified for benefit of this notification, as they were used for Internal Combustion Pis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment was that the part should be meant for application in the assembly of engines as specified in Tariff Item No. 84.06, and that the parts themselves do not have to go to the same heading. They contend that it is on this interpretation that number of similar claims have been allowed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, whereas this claim was erroneously rejected. 5. During the hearing before u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally held that the clarificatory notification issued subsequently, being Notification No. 29-Cus./77, sets at rest all doubts arising from grammatical construction of the language of the impugned notification, and held that benefit of Notification No. 395-Cus./76 is not to be limited to only those parts which were themselves assessable under Heading 84.06 of the CTA. A similar view had been earlie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he nature of things did not argue against these decisions of the Government of India. We ourselves have gone through the wording of the notification and these decisions, and are of our considered view that the interpretation given to the wording of this notification in the aforesaid two decisions of Government of India is correct. We, therefore, hold that on parity of reasoning, benefit of Notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
