ORDER
Harish Chander, President
1. M/s. Cinecita Pvt. Ltd. have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. Shri R. Parthasarthy, Id. Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants. He pleaded that the appellants had imported Projection lenses and had sought clearance under Heading 9002.90 read with the Heading 9002.92. Shri Parthasarthy pleaded that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Nom. No. 93/86-Cus. and he does not press for the benefit of Notn. No. 79/90-C.E. for the purpose of CVD. He pleaded that the earlier decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vishal Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI, reported in 1988 (44) 420 was in favour of the Revenue whereas the later decision of Bombay Divisional Bench in the case of Vishal Electronics v. UOI, reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 557 is in favour of the appellants. He pleaded that the effective rate of duty chargeable at the rate applicable to main machine should be adopted for lenses also in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 557 since the appellants are entitled to have the benefit of the notification. He pleaded for acceptance of the appeal.
2. Shri S.K. Tyagi, Id. JDR pleaded that in view of the submissions of the Id. Advocate and the Divisional Bench judgement of Bombay High Court, he leaves it to the discretion of the Bench.
3. We have heard both sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The product in dispute is Projection lenses for use in Cinematographic Projectors. For proper appreciation of the legal position, Heading 9002.90 and Heading 9007.92 as well as Notn. No. 93/86 are reproduced below:-
* * * * * * * * *
A perusal of SI. No. 3 of the Notification shows that the effective rate of duty is 40% ad valorem on Cinematographic Projectors. The Divisional Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vishal Electronics v. UOI reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 557 (para 4) had held that:
* * * * * * * * *
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 1970 SC 1734 had held that where two interpretations are possible, the interpretation which is in favour of the asses-see has to be adopted.
In view of the above discussion, we respectfully follow the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vishal Electronics reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 557 and hold that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 93/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986. Shri Parthasarthy during the course of arguments pleaded that he does not press his ground of appeal on the issue of CV Duty and as such the contention of the appellants on this issue is rejected being withdrawn. In the result the appeal is allowed partly. Revenue authorities are directed to give consequential relief.