ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This is a Revenue Appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order dated 13-12-1990 holding that the imported items namely jigs and fixtures were not accessories but component parts of machine tools and hence they would be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 156/86 and thus they are required to be classified under Chapter heading 9806 of the Customs Tariff.
2. The Revenue contends that both the items namely jigs and fixtures are technically analogous to work holders classifiable under Chapter 8466.20 since the work holders are also designed to hold and sometimes manipulate the part being worked by the machine. They contend that both the items are merely accessories and not parts of the machine tools. In this connection, reliance is also placed on the H.S.N. Notes.
3. We have heard Shri Victor Thiagaraj, ld. SDR and Shri M.S. Kumaraswany, ld. Consultant for the respondents.
4. On a careful consideration and examination of the submissions made, we notice that the original authority rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that they had not produced evidence to show that the items imported forms part of machine and they have not produced the catalogue. Ld. Collector (Appeals) merely accepted the plea that they are part of machines classifiable under Heading 98.06/84.66 and being eligible for the Notification No. 156/86, without giving any reasons and details how the parts are not ac-. cessories. There is no evidence placed by the importer even before us to support their claim except the catalogue produced by the ld. Consultant to support the plea that the item is part of machine tools. Ld. Consultant submits that they will be in a position to prove their case to the effective evidence and also having the machine examined by the Engineer. Ld. SDR submits that the matter is required to go back to the original authority as both the authorities have not examined the evidence to come to the conclusion as to how the item is a part of an accessory as the case may be. He submits that the issue requires to be re-determined.
5. On consideration of these submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the matter is required to be remanded to the original authority to re-examine the issue in the light of the above discussions and full evidence that could be produced by the importer in the form of Chartered Engineer’s Certificate and also by having the matter examined through experts to find as to how both the imported items are functioning. The respondents shall be heard in the matter before a detailed order is passed. Thus the impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to original authority for de novo consideration.