UNITED ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case was heard on 8 -2 -1983. The appellants imported the following three machines in two separate consignments : -

(2.) THE appellants then filed a revision application to the Central Government which, on transfer to this Tribunal, has been taken upas the subject appeal. Along with their revision application, the appellants produced a letter dated 29 -11 -80 from the Department of Electronics in which it is stated that the intention of the said Department at the time of recommending the equipment for concessional duty was to allow the benefit both to the autotmatic lead welding, colour coating, lacquering, testing, sorting and packing machines for resistors when imported as a complete plant or as separate machines. During the hearing before us, the appellants produced a further letter dated 7 -2 -83 from the Electronics Directorate of the D.G.T.D. which is in the following terms : -

(3.) THE Department's representative maintained that since the subject machines had been imported separately, they had to be considered in the light of the wording of the entry 58 as it then existed and that this Tribunal could not correct any drafting error in the original entry. However, he wanted time to check up the position regarding the DGTD's letter dated 7 -2 -83 produced by the appellants. His request Was granted. The Department's representative subsequently sent a letter dated 2 -5 -83 to the Registry in which he stated that he had verified the correctness of the DGTD's certificate and that there could be no objection to the matter being decided on merits in the light of DGTD's certificate (i.e. the DGTD's letter dated 7 -2 -83).