ORDER
Harish Chander, Member (J)
1. Mackinnons Forwarding Service, Calcutta had filed a Revision Application to the Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi on behalf of M/s. Dun-lop India Ltd., Calcutta being aggrieved from order in appeal No. CAL-CUS-253/1981 dated 15.7.1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta. The said Revision Application stands transferred to the Tribunal in terms of the provisions of Section 13IB of the Customs Act, 1962 to be disposed of as an appeal.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that M/s. Dunlop India Ltd. had imported rims which are parts of aero tyre retreading machine. The Revenue authorities had assessed the same under heading 84.59(1) of the Customs Tariff Act,1975. The importers had filed a claim for refund of duty on the ground that the imported goods were assessable under heading 84.59(2) at the rate of 60% + 15%. The learned Assistant Collector had rejected the refund claim as unsubstantiated for non-submission of documents. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order the importers had filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector of Customs. The learned Appellate Collector of Customs confirmed the findings of the Assistant Collector and had rejected the appeal as unsubstantiated as the appellant did not file any documents before him. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order the importers had filed a Revision Application which is to be treated as an appeal.
3. A notice of hearing dated 21.1.1987 was sent by registered A.D. post to the clearing agents with a copy to the importers. In response to the said notice of hearing, the clearing agents M/s. Mackinnons Forwarding Service have acknowledged receipt of notice of hearing dated 21.1.1987 and have also sent 5 sets of documents as mentioned in the notice of hearing. The matter was called. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the appellants. The appellants have not filed any application for adjournment and have also not made any arrangement for proper representation in the court. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits.
4. Shri J. Gopinath, the learned SDR, has appeared on behalf of the respondents and has relied on the orders passed by the lower authorities and has stated that the position of the appellants is the same what was before the lower authorities. The appellants have not taken any care in filing the documents viz. catalogue etc. in support of their claim for assessment under Heading 84.59(2). Shri Gopinath states that sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.59 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 relates to machines and mechanical appliances designed for the production of a commodity, machinery for treating metals, wood or similar materials for stripping and cutting of tobacco leaf or for cutting or rolling tea leaves; machines for mounting card clothing; nuclear reactors whereas main”1 Heading 84.59 relates to machines and mechanical appliances, having individual functions, not falling within any other heading of this Chapter and sub-heading (1) relates to ‘not elsewhere specified’. Shri Gopinath states that the items imported by the appellants do not fall in any of the items appearing in sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.59 and the or ders passed by the lower authorities are correct in law and the appeal filed by the appellants needs to be dismissed.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned SDR and have gone through the records. The items imported by the appellants are parts of aero tyre retreading machine and the function of the machine is not for the production of a commodity or machinery for treating metals, wood or similar materials. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal. We hold that the parts imported for aero tyre retreading machine are asses- sable under Heading 84.59(1) of the Customs Tariff Act,1975. We confirm the findings of the lower authorities. The appeal is dismissed.
6. Pronounced in open court.