ORDER
I.J. Rao, Member (T)
1. The appellants imported a Casting for Crank Case under the Bill of Entry No. 3674 dated 14-6-1982. Subsequent to the clearance of the goods, appellants filed a refund claim on the ground that C.V. Duty was’ leviable under Tariff Item 26AA CET and not under TI 63 CET as was done. The Assistant Collector rejected this claim on the ground that the imported goods could not be identified as unfinished articles. The Appellate Collector rejected the appeal filed before him on the ground that the party failed to explain the ground of the claim properly.
2. We have heard Shri G.N. Ray, Works Manager for the Appellants. Shri Ray submitted that the imported goods were unfinished articles and consisted of Casting for Crank Case. He filed a copy of the order confirmation and submitted that this document contains Part No. 51.01101-3046 and describes the goods as “Crank Case Casting (un-machined)”. He also called our attention to the supply order which describes the goods as “un-machined”.
3. Shri Saha, the Ld. JDR, after perusing of both documents agreed that these documents related to the imported goods with the given Part No. and that according to these documents the goods were in un-finished condition, being un-machined.
4. We have perused the documents before us and considered the arguments submitted by Shri Ray. It is clear that the imported goods were un-machined. Therefore, they were correctly liable to C. V. Duty under Tariff Item No. 26AA of CET. We, therefore, allow the appeal and direct that the goods be re-assessed under this heading, read with exemption notification, if any, and that consequential refund be granted to the appellants.