COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. JAY ENGG. WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal of the Revenue challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) classifying the goods imported by the respondents under sub -heading 9031.80 of the Customs Tariff schedule and granting the benefit of Notification No. 118/86 -Cus. to the goods.

(2.) We have examined the records. It appears that this appeal is arising in a second round of litigation. In the first round, we had remanded the matter to the lower appellate authority as per final order dt. 27 -8 -97 directing the authority to dispose of the matter afresh after considering various aspects of the matter including the classification of the imported goods. The remand order had reproduced the Heading No. 90.17 (as this heading stood at that time) as also the relevant data contained in the Product Literature filed by the party. This Bench found that the classification of the product under Heading 90.17 had not been properly examined by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The present appeal is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in pursuance of the remand order. The operative part of the impugned order is reproduced under : -

(3.) We have examined the rival submissions. It is true that Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules has been invoked by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for classification of the main equipment along with all accessories thereto, imported by the party. We appreciate this. Nevertheless, we note, Rule 2 of the Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963, which is apparently a provision relevant to the question whether accessories to any imported equipment should be chargeable at the same rate as, or at a rate of duty different from, the rate applicable to the main equipment, does not find any mention in the impugned order. This is a rule which was applied, rightly or wrongly, by the original authority. Consistently, the appellant has invoked the Rule, again, in the present appeal. The Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963 were framed by the Central Government under Section 156 of the Customs Act. A reading of this Section of the Act indicates that the Rules were named under Clause (b) of Sub -section (2) of the said Section. This Clause (b) seems to have a strong bearing on the classification of accessories/spare parts imported along with the main article. This provision has not been looked into by the Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding on the classification issue. In the circumstances, we have no option other than making a second remand. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to dispose of the matter afresh in terms of the relevant observations contained in this order, as well as in accordance with the law and the principle of natural justice. It is felt that, as the case pertains to imports which took place a decade ago, it must attain finality at the earliest. Accordingly, we would call upon ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a speaking order in the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.