ORDER
Harish Chander, Member (J)
1. Collector of Customs, Bombay has filed an appeal being aggrieved by an order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The notices of hearing listing the matters for hearing on 8-2-1990, 22-3-1990 and 6-6-1990 were sent. On 6-6-1990 a Misc. Order No. 46/90-B2 was passed. The Bench had directed the appellants to file photo-copies of the catalogue and it was further directed that if the respondents have got the catalogue they were at liberty to file the same. No body has appeared on behalf of the respondents. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the matter on merits.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondents had filed two Bills of Entries vide B/E No. 320/119 dated 16-5-1981 and B/E 435/130 dated 19-6-1981. In B/E 320 dated 27-5-1981 the description was given as second-hand machine manufactured by M/s. Hatbur Metalforming Equipment, Switzerland Automatic multi-station nut making machine type PKZ1 and PKZ1 1/2 and in the other B/E viz. 435, the description was given as second-hand machine manufactured by M/s. Hatbur Metalforming Equipment Automatic multi-station nut making machine type BKE 10 Cold Header, PKE 16 cold header. Before the Asstt. Collector the respondents had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 40/78 read with Notification No. 268/88-Cus. The respondent had contended that the goods were covered by S. No. 12 of Notification No. 40/78. After examination and perusal of the catalogue/literature the Asstt. Collector took the view that none of the machines makes a complete nut but both the machines together make a nut. The Asstt. Collector had observed that two machines can complete nut not one individually. Both the machines although have two stations each but none of them is capable of making a nut by itself but each of them work in the process of making nut (i) forming but blank (ii) another giving final shape of nut from the blank. The Asstt. Col-lector had rejected the claim of the respondents on the ground that in the Notification the word is ‘machine’ and not ‘machines’ and notification would cover only that machine if it was capable of making complete bolt or nut in self-contained manner and accordingly he had rejected the respondents’ claim for benefit of Notification No. 40/78. Being dissatisfied by the order passed by the Asstt. Collector the appeal was filed before the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) had given an observation that so long as the function of both the machines was to make nuts and bolts automatically, he did not find any reason as to why the description at S. No. 12 should have been restrictively in-terpreted by the lower authorities. He had allowed the appeal being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the Revenue has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.
3. Shri M.K. Sohal, learned JDR has appeared on behalf of the appellant-Collector. He has relied on the Order-in-Original and pleaded that the matter is covered by a judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Guestkeen Williams v. CC vide Order No. 192/87-B2 dt. 19-12-1987 in Appeal No. CD(SB)1516//84-B2 reported in 1987 (29) ELT 68 (Tri.) and further argued that since one machine cannot have independent automatic function for the making of nut and bold the benefit of Notification No. 40/78 read with Notification No. 268/88 cannot be extended. He has pleaded for allowing of the appeal.
4. We have heard Shri Sohal, learned JDR and have gone through the records. The description of the goods given in the B/E has been duly discussed above. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hem Raj Gordhan Dass Dave v. A.C. reported in 1978 (2) ELT J-350 had held that the Notification has to be construed strictly and there is no scope for intendment. We have also gone through the catalogue of the machine. Photocopy of the catalogue for both the machines is attached vide Annexure-A. In the B/E description has been given as automatic multi-station nut making machine whereas the figure Nos. 5 & 6 which are annexure with this order clearly states that finishing presses are two station machines with solid series being partly of vertical and partly of horizontal construction. The same issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Guestkeen Williams v. CC cited supra. In the grounds of appeal the appellant has made a prayer for grant of relief in respect of machine model PKE and no relief has been claimed for PKZ. While disposing of the appeal the Tribunal should not extend the scope of the appeal in view of the above discussion. We are of the view that the machine PKE is not entitled to the benefit of Exemption Notification 40/78.
5. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed in terms of the prayer made in the grounds of appeal and the findings of the Tribunal are only confined to machine model PKE.