TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the impugned part is not only a mere sting or wire or rope but is part of A90B100 which consists of other units. It was not correct on the part of the department to isolate a minor part of the whole assembly and to classify the same according to the metal used in the manufacture of the same. The highly technical equipment cannot be differentiated into smaller parts and cannot be classified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion under Notifications No.21/2002-Cus. and No.6/2002-CE are not applicable. A show-cause notice was issued and was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No.100/2008 dated 30.8.2008. Commissioner has upheld the order of the lower authorities vide Order-in-Appeal No.47/2009 dated 12.5.2009; hence, this appeal. 2. The appellants in their grounds of appeal have submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice. CC, Mumbai vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd.: 2006 (201) ELT 513 (SC) CCE vs. Nav Bharat Engineering: 2004 (163) ELT 213 (Tri.-Delhi) CCE, Bombay vs. Neoluxe India: 2001 (128) ELT 298 (T) Warner Hindustan Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad: 1999 (113) ELT 24 (SC) 2.2 They further submitted that the cargo sling was supplied by M/s. Indraero Siren, France who have confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied by the competent authority to be eligible for exemption. 2.4 Tribunal in the case of Mak Controls Systems Pvt. Ltd.: 2007 (211) ELT 123 have held that equipment like compressor which is a part of the ground power unit for exclusive use with aircrafts are classified as part of aircrafts. 3. None appeared on behalf of the appellants. The learned DR has reiterated the findings of the Order- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification, the impugned goods are eligible for exemption under Notification No.39/1996-Cus. dated 31.7.1996. When the Tribunal (supra) has held ground power unit to be part of the helicopters, there should be no doubt in classifying the impugned equipment as parts of helicopters. Therefore, we find that the appeal survives on all counts. 5. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. ( Orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
