ORDER
J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. The importers filed Bill of Entry for clearance of a Roll Cut Machine seeking classification under Heading 8451.50. The assessment was completed, charging a rate of duty higher than what was warranted for goods falling under this classification. However, the ‘blade’ which accompanied the machine was separately shown in the bill of entry by the assessing officer and was classified under Heading 8479.89. After clearance of the goods, the importers filed a claim seeking refund of the duty paid on the machine and that which was leviable on a machine falling under 8451.50. The Asstt. Collector rejected the refund claim saying that the machine warranted classification under 8479.89 for which the rate of duty as was paid was correct. The Collector (Appeals) observed that the copy of the bill of entry submitted by the importers in appeal was the triplicate bill of entry, that since the Appraising officer had changed the rate of duty for the Roll Cut Machine as was required for machine falling under Heading 8479, he must have changed the classification of this machine in the original and the duplicate copy. On this observation, he rejected the appeal.
2. The appellants have desired disposal on merits which we proceed to do after hearing Shri D.S. Negi, ld. DR.
3. The claim made by the importers before us which was made by them all along before the lower authorities also is that when the assessment was completed under Heading 8451.50, then the claim for refund stands and that the assessment done by the Appraiser could not be later modified by the Asstt. Collector.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions and have seen the bill of entry also. If the assessing authority had not corrected the tariff entry of the Roll Cut Machine from 8451.50 to 8479.89, then the assessment is to be held to have been done under the former tariff item and therefore it is to be held that the duty was charged in excess resulting in the refund claim warranting consideration. This could have been found by inspection of the duplicate copy which would be available in the Customs House either in the Manifest Clearance Department or in Microfilm section. Nothing prevented the Collector (Appeals) from examining the duplicate copy so available. In the absence of the inspection his presumption that the tariff heading in the duplicate copy must have been amended or corrected by the assessing officer is not feasible. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the Collector’s order and remand the proceedings back to the Assistant Collector for de novo consideration and for making an appropriate order.