ORDER
H.R. Syiem, Member (T)
1. M/s. Aksharchhaya did not appear at the hearing on 1-12-1987.
2. The bench.took up the condonlation of delay as the appeal was delayed by a certain time. M/s. Aksharchhaya say that the delay was caused by the fact that they filed their appeal to the Government of India instead of this Tribunal. We consider that the delay should be condoned and so we condone it.
3. M/s. Aksharchhaya appeal that the parts should be charged at the same rate as applicable to the main machine phototypesetter . They referred to Section Note 2(b) of Section XVI of Chapter 84 of the Custorns Tariff in Support of their claim. This provision specifically includes electrical arid electronic parts which are otherwise covered under 85.18/27. Therefore, parts under 85.18/27 must be classified with the main machine if they are used exclusively with the main machine.’ The printed circuit boards cannot be used with any other type of machine, not even with different brands of phototypcselters. Hence, the part should be classified with the phototypeselter and the duty should be charged at 25% and not at 137.6%.
4. A similar equipment was passed in New Delhi in which the entire equipment was assessed at the rate of duty applicable to photolypesetter itself without going into the details of the accessories.
5. The SDR, however, pointed out that it would not be possible to accept the contention of the appellants, since as recorded in the order-in-appeal, the accessories and parts, though shipped with the phototypcsettcr, were not compulsorily supplied with the machine, but have been listed and charged separately in the invoice.
6. . I agree that this is so. The parls came not as parts of the machine but were separately charged, and invoiced differently from the main machine. It may be true, as claimed by the importers, that the PCB and the flopping disc have such specific uses that they can be used only with the phototypesetter with which they arrived. But they stood apart and separate from the main machine. Therefore, they cannot form part of the assessment of the main machine, phototypesetter. The action of the lower authorities, therefore, cannot be faulted and I am not prepared to interfere.
7. The appeal is rejected.