ORDER
Harish Chander, Vice President
1. Collector of Customs, Bombay, has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay. Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay had disposed of three appeals by a common order. The original appeal was received in the Registry on the 16th day of October, 1984 and the supplementary appeals were received in the Registry on the 11th day of March, 1991 and both the appeals are supported with an application for condonation of delay.
2. Shri S.K. Roy, learned SDR, has made a prayer for grant of condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant had bona fidely filed a single appeal, as soon as he discovered that two more appeals have to be filed, he filed the same and the original appeal was filed within the stipulated period.
3. Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, stated that in view of the submissions of the learned SDR, he has got no objection for condonation of delay.
4. We have heard both the sides. The original appeal was filed within the limitation prescribed under the Act. Later on two more appeals were filed as soon as the appellant discovered that two more appeals have to be filed. The bona fide of the appellant should not be doubted. We are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the supplementary appeals. The delay in the filing of the appeals is condoned.
5. Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, pleaded that the miscellaneous application filed by him may be withdrawn and necessary permission be granted. Shri S.K. Roy, ld. SDR, does not object. After hearing both the sides, necessary permission for the withdrawal of the miscellaneous application is granted. For statistical purposes, the miscellaneous application is dismissed.
6. Now we take the above-captioned three appeals on merits. Shri S.K. Roy, learned SDR, who has appeared on behalf of the appellant, pleaded that the respondent imported Relief Valves and the Revenue has assessed the same under Heading 84.10, and the respondents claimed it under Heading 84.61(2). Shri roy relied on the Order-in-Original and pleaded that the classification, as ordered by the adjudicating authorities, are correct, and the Collector (Appeals) erred in accepting the appeals.
7. Shri L.P. Asthana, ld. Advocate, stated that the nature of the valves is not disputed by the appellant and these are pressure reducing valves, and the matter is covered by earlier decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Krishna & Co. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, reported in 1983 (14) ELT 2017, BHEL v. Collector of Customs, reported in 1989 (42) ELT 68A and Central Railway Bombay v Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1984 (16) ELT 507. Shri Asthana pleaded for the dismissal of the appeals.
8. Shri S.K. Roy, learned SDR, pleaded that in view of the decisions cited by the learned Advocate, he leaves it to the discretion of the Bench.
9. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not disputed that the valves imported by the respondents are pressure reducing valves. We have looked into the earlier decision of the Tribunal reported in 1983 (14) ELT 2017 [Krishna & Co. v. Collector of Customs]. Para No. 5 from the said judgment is reproduced below: –
“5. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the party. We observe that the nature of the goods involved in the case is one of the fact; if the imported goods is pressure reducing valve, it would fall under Item 84.61(2) and if not pressure reducing valve and is considered an integral part of the machines it would attract Item 84.10 of the CTA. The matter would have to be remanded for a de novo examination in the light of observation made in the order.”
In the case of Central Railway Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, reported in 1984 (16) ELT 507 (Tri), the Tribunal, in paragraph No.7, had held as under : –
“7. In respect of item valve (Sr. No. 4 of the Bill of Entry) it is seen that as claimed by the appellants the valve is specifically covered by Item 84.61(2) CTA. Therefore, we accept the request and order that this item be reclassified accordingly. In respect of strap, however, the claim of the appellant is that this strap will be fitted on the ascentric oil pump. The Collector (Appeals) observed that the bronze strip being alloy of copper it should have been classified under Item 74.09/10 of the CTA. The appellants could not get any relief because the rate of duty under this head is the same as under 84.06 CTA. We agree with the finding of the Collector (Appeals) and do not find any justification in classifying this item under 84.10(2) CTA.”
Keeping in view the decision of the Tribunal, we hold that the goods imported are oil pressure reducing valves and merit classification under Heading 84.61(2) of the CTA. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the Revenue’s appeals. The above-captioned three appeals are dismissed. The cross objection filed by the respondents is in support of the Order-in-Appeal and no further relief has been claimed, and as such, the same is dismissed as infructuous.