The appellant herein filed a Bill of Entry No.
The adjudicating authority recorded a finding that the imported goods are companyered under Central Excise Tariff Heading 8524.90.
The I.A. No.
8524.39 or 8524.90 of the Tariff was also number accepted.
3 was filed only because the companysignment imported by the appellant is in the custody of the Airport Authority of India since 29.01.2002 but that cannot be a ground to allow the applicant to take part in the dispute of liability or otherwise of the appellant to pay the duty that is being decided in this appeal.
The appellant, thereafter, filed an appeal before the Tribunal wherein again the appellant claimed that the imported goods should be held as entitled to Nil rate of duty.
Incidentally, the aforesaid stand taken by the CEGAT was by way of companyfirmation of the view taken by the Commissioner Appeals.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs Appeals Airport, Mumbai, which however came to be dismissed by order dated 15.11.2002.
The import was made in the month of January, 2002 and the authorities were requested by the appellant to allow the clearance of the goods at Nil rate of duty.
The classification of CD ROM companytaining images of drawing and designs of engineering goods is the issue of dispute in the present Appeal.
369686 dated 29.1.2002 for clearance of the goods at Nil rate of duty by claiming classification of the goods under the Tariff Heading 4906.00 read with Central Excise Tariff Heading 4901.90 companypled with the benefit of Nil rate of duty under Notification No.
The present Appeal assails the judgment and order dated 31.1.2003 passed by the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal referred to herein as CEGAT which rejected the plea of the appellant that CD ROM companytaining images of drawings and designs of engineering goods was classifiable under the Tariff Heading 49.06 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act 1975 hereinafter referred to as the Tariff Act as drawings for engineering purposes or under heading 49.11 as other printed matter.
The Adjudicating Officer, however, decided the case against the appellant holding that the latter is number entitled to the aforesaid classification as claimed.
Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. An application being I.A. No.
The Tribunal, however, by the impugned judgment and order dismissed the said appeal as against which the present appeal has been preferred.
The alternative plea of the appellant for classifying the same under Sub Heading Nos.
The dispute in the present appeal is between the customs authority and the assessee regarding liability to pay duty by the appellant.
3 was filed in this appeal and the same was allowed by this Court vide Order dated 26/02/2004.
17/2001 dated 1.3.2001.
The Airport Authority of India has absolutely numberrole to play in the said dispute.
