ORDER
S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice as per acknowledgement on record. However, we find that appellant filed written submissions which are on record. Therefore, the appeal is being taken up in the absence of the respondents.
2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 21-2-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). In the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise held that Drying oven size manufactured by the respondents are classifiable under sub-heading 7308.90 of the Central Excise Tariff and are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. In respect of Aluminium drums of various sizes, the Commissioner in the impugned order classified them under Heading 83.12 of the Central Excise Tariff and granted the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. In respect of Aluminium Louvers of fixed type, the Collector has classified these items under Heading 76.13 of the Central Excise Tariff and granted the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. Aluminium Perforated Sheets of various shapes and sizes are classifiable under sub-heading 7616.90 of the Central Excise Tariff and the benefit of notification was also granted. Similar is the finding in respect of Fabricated Panels manufactured by the respondents. The Collector of Central Excise classified this item under sub-heading 7362.90 of the Central Excise Tariff as articles of base metal and granted the benefit of notification.
3. Heard Shri Jagdish Singh, learned SDR and perused the appeal papers.
4. The contention of the Revenue in this case in respect of the above mentioned items is that these parts are Air-handling unit which is an Air-conditioning machinery. Therefore, these parts are not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. We have perused the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue. In the grounds of appeal only averment is made that the goods in question are parts of the Air-conditioning machinery but not description of the goods or any evidence to this effect was produced by the Revenue. Therefore, in absence of any material to support tine contention that the goods are the parts of Air-conditioning machinery, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is rejected.