ORDER
S. Duggal, Member (J)
1. In this appeal, the appellants after the notice intimated waiver of personal hearing, and that the issue can be decided on merits on the basis of the documents furnished by them.
2. We have, therefore, gone through the file with the assistance of Shri Gopinath, SDR. We find that the imported goods had been described in the Bill of Entry as “Parts of Machinery (Viz) non-metallic machine cloth cut to shape and size 2 1/2 yards long X 40″ wide (2.286 m X 1 metre)”. Same was the description in the Invoice, and this fact has been confirmed by the Supplier by letter dated October 1,1973, which was filed with the revision petition now appeal before us. It has been specifically mentioned in the aforesaid letter that the subject goods were : ‘nylon machine cloth pieces of 2 1/2 yards length X 40 inches wide, are required for direct fitting to machines’, adding that these pieces are ‘supplied ready cut to size, so that no loss of production is experienced, as the pieces can be fitted directly to the machine, the bed of which is 2 V2 yards X 40″ wide.’ In view of this description the goods have been assessed for the purpose of basic Customs Duty at the rate of 40% plus 5%. Although the appellants claim that this assessment was under T.I. 72(3) of the ICT which fact has been repeated in the Orders of the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector, but Shri Gopinath pointed out that the import of the goods being after 2-8-1976 when the Customs Tariff Act came into force; the proper Tariff Heading would be T.I. 59.16/17 of CTA. We have checked this position and we agree with the learned SDR but the fact remains that the goods have been accepted to be as parts of ‘machinery’ for purposes of assessment to Customs Duty, and not as textile fabrics. We, therefore, find justification in the contention of the appellants that for the purpose of additional duty of Customs (Countervailing Duty), the goods have been erroneously treated as falling under T.I. 18 or T.I. 22 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal has held in a series of decisions that this type of fabric cloth made specifically for being used in machinery of specified type is to be treated as goods falling under T.I. 68 of the CET.
3. We, therefore, are satisfied that the authorities below have erred in treating the goods falling under T.I. 18 or T.I. 22 of the CET for the purpose of additional duty of Customs (CVD). We are of the considered view that these goods were to be regarded as T.I. 68 goods for this purpose. It is to be noted that at the relevant time of the imports, viz., 1976 there was no countervailing duty for T.I. 68 goods. Shri Gopinath concedes that this was introduced for the first time in 1979. We, therefore, find merit in the contention in the appeal that no CVD or Additional Duty of Customs was leviable on these goods. We accordingly allow the appeal with consequential relief.