ORDER
K.L. Rekhi, Member
1. This revision petition filed by Embarkation Headquarters on behalf of Ordnance Factory, Bhandara to the Government of India has been received as an appeal to the Tribunal under the provisions of Section 131B(2) and has been taken up today for disposal as such.
2. Shri Paramaswamy, Works Manager of the said Ordnance Factory, appeared today for the appellants whereas Department was represented by Shri A.K. Derashri, SDR.
3. The appellants’ representative pointed out that the lower authorities erred in treating the, imported goods as parts or components of domestic refrigerator by assessing it to duty under Tariff Item 72(5) of the Customs Act, as then prevailing. He pointed out that the subject parts had been imported by them for their compressor which is known as turbo compressor with 620 Horse Power and was thus an industrial refrigeration plant, used in their factory for manufacturing explosives, and as such the imported item ought to have been treated as component parts of the machinery, as contemplated by Tariff Item 72(3).
4. Shri A.K. Derashri, Departmental Representative opposed the prayer made in the appeal. Although he could not defend the orders to justify levy of customs duty with reference to Tariff Item No. 72(5), he pointed out that even if appellants’ contention that the goods were parts of the industrial refrigeration unit were to be accepted, they appropriately fell under Tariff Item 72(25). He thus contended that the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
5. We have considered all the aspects and in view of the facts placed before us on behalf of the appellants, we find that assessment of these items under Tariff Item 72(5) of the Customs Tariff is absolutely unsustainable. We, however, do not find it possible to accept the contention of the learned Departmental Representative that since the appellants had mentioned 72(3), we are debarred from considering the appropriate Tariff Entry. Having noticed the correct tariff heading which would apply to the present case, i.e., Tariff heading 72(25), the whole of the subject goods are to be assessed to customs duty with reference to Tariff Item No. 72(25). We further find that the rate of duty both under 72(3) as well as under 72(25) is same namely 40%. Consequently, the appellants would not be getting any higher rebate of duty then as claimed by them, as a result of one directing the assessment to be made under Tariff Entry 72(25). For purposes of countervailing duty, however, the relevant Tariff Entry is Item 29A of the Central Excises Tariff.
6. We accordingly allow the appeal to the extent that for purposes of customs duty, the assessment is to be under Tariff Heading 72(25) and for purposes of Countervailing Duty with reference to Tariff Entry 29A of the Central Excise Tariff. However, the concerned authorities will keep in focus any Exemption Notification, which ought have been in force at that time with reference to it or any of the items falling under CET 29A, and give consequential relief, wherever available.