The plugging on the carburettor body, the Collector felt, was, therefore, in the nature of treatment on the metalic body for making it revetable subsequently even otherwise also the machine by plugging holes on the carburettor body was companyfirming to the description of a machine tool as given under heading 84.54/48 of the Customs Tariff.
Counsel for the appellant produced before us a carburettor without being treated by the machine and another which has already been treated.
He therefore, accepted the appellants companytention.
From the order dated 5.12.1986 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.
Machine tools include slotting machines, drilling and boring machines, tapping machines, reaming machines and riveting machines.
He took the view that the imported machine by plugging holes on the carburettor body with the help of lead shots was clearly a machine which was fully companyforming to the description of a machine for treating metals inasmuch as it was treating carburettor body and preparing it for being revetted.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He also produced a lead shot as also a numberle and indicated the drilling process which is carried on by the machine on the carburettor.
424/86 B 2.
If the appellants claim is accepted the duty is at the rate of 40 per cent while if the departments stand is maintained it is at the rate of 60 per cent.
R. Andhyarujina, F.H.J. Talyarkhan, Shri Narain, R.K. Krishnamurthi and Sandeep Narain for the Appellants.
K. Ganguli, P. Parmeswaran and Ms. Radha Rangaswamy for the Respondents.
The Assistant Collector took the view that the imported machine was number manufacturing carburettors and was discharging an individual function of plugging holes in the carburettor body with the help of lead shots.
571 of 1987.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal under section 130 E of the Customs Act is directed against the decision of the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, by which the Tribunal has reversed the appellate decision of the Collector of Customs Appeals , Bombay.
Therefore, the appropriate entry was 84.59 1 of the Customs Tariff.
The short point involves in this appeal is as to whether the imported special purpose companyplex machine has to be charged to customs duty under item 89.59 1 as claimed by the Revenue or under 84.45/48 of the tariff schedule as maintained by the appellant.
The appellant challenged the order of the Assistant Collector by preferring an appeal to the Collector Appeals .
