ORDER
Shri S.L. Peeran
1. Both these appeals are of the same importer and raising same question of law and facts hence they are taken up together for disposal,as per law.However, the Orders-in-Appeal have been passed by different Commissioners at different point of time with different reasoning, but coming to the same conclusion that the accessories imported by the appellants are component parts in terms of definition given in the EXIM policy.They also relied on the Ministry’s clarification and in the appeal No.655/2000, the Commissioner has also relied on final order No.2294/99 dated 6.9.99 as well as Larger Bench judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Jindal Strips Vs. CC [1997 (94) ELT 234] and that of Metal Impacts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC [1993 (64)ELT 286].
2. Ld. DR Shri S. Arumugam very forceful and vehemently argues that there is no dispute in the case that the item imported was `accessories.’ The notification in question clearly refers to component parts of machine tools for making metals.” Therefore, the case of Jindal Strips is clearly distinguishable in as much as in that case they were considering spares “as” “components” and not `accessories’ as `comonens’ `on’ `spares’.He submits that the notification has to be strictly construed and the definition of `accessories’ is quire clear as per Accessories Rules 1963. An accessory is one which is not specially required for the purpose of running the machine as a basic necessity. Ld.DR submits that for the purpose of classification under Customs Act, the accessories and parts are treated as differently.He refers to Chapter Heading 84.66 which deals with `parts and accessories’. The appellants has got their item declared as `accessories’ under Sub Heading 84.66 under Customs Tariff.Therefore, he submits that in the absence of any evidence produced by the appellants to show that the Poiser operated Chucker and Tool holder are not merely `accessories’ but are essential parts and they have to be treated as components, therefore, the claim allowed by the Commissioner is not correct.He further submits that there is another judgment of the Tribunal which distinguished watch bands and watch strips and held it to be as not `watch components ‘for the benefit of notification No.76/82 dated 10.2.86 as in the case of CC Vs. Unity Industries [2000(122)ELT 622-Trib.].
3. Ld. Consultant Shri M.S. Kumaraswamuy also equally and forcefully submitted that, through, the Commissioner have been giving relief on the premise that the definition of `component parts’ is not defined in the Notification and therefore they have to rely upon the definition as appearing in EXIM Policy which clearly includes within the definition of `component parts’, `accessories’ also. This has been supported by the Ministry’s clarification and the judgment of Larger Bench in the case of jindal strips which clarified that `spares’ are required to be considered as `component parts’. He further referred to invoices as well as the Bill of Entries wherein the authorities have considered the item to be as `part’ of the main machine even though they have declared it `as accessories’. He submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and in view of the final order No.2294/99 dated 6.9.99 of this bench and the Larger Bench and that of the Metal lmpacts Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Commissioner’s appeals are required to be rejected.
4. On a careful consideration of the submission, we notice from Sl.No.4 of Notification No.156/86-Cus, that the descritption of good for the purpose of grant of partial exemption is for “component parts of machine tools for “component parts of machine tools for making metals falling under heading 84.66. In the present case, there is no dispute that the item is covered under heading 84.66.However , under 84.66 of the Tariff, `parts and accessories are also covered.’ Therefore, the tariff having recognised under 84.66 `parts’ as well as `accessories’ and notification only refers to `component parts’, hence there is force in the submission made by LD.DR. However, the finding given by the lower authorities and arguments put forth by the Ld.Consultant also cannot be brushed aside for the simple reason that the department has treated the item to be as `parts’ and the importers have forcefully pleaded before the authorities that the item is not just an accessory but it is essential part of the main machine.but , we do not find any evidence on records to appreciate and give our findings.We are of the considered opinion that the assessee importer is required to be give an opportunity to demonstrate that although they have descried the item, as `accessories’, the department has treated it as
`component and spare parts’ and that the said item is essential for running the machine and it is essential, part that it is nothing but component parts itself.Further plea that the definition of component parts is not available and they can rely upon the definition in EXIM Policy; although it has been examined by the authorities below requires recruiting as , we are of the considered opinion that the Notification has to be strictly construed.The reason being that the heading 84.66 has been to `parts’ as well as to `accessories’. In a circumstances like this when `accessories’ have been excluded in the notification,then the plea of the DR that Notification has to be strictly constructed is to be appreciated and accepted.Be that as it may, the Consultant’s plea that they can establish that the item imported is essential for running the machine should also be considered and for that reason, we set aside both the impugned orders and remand the matters to the original authority for de novo consideration.The assessee shall be given full opportunity to produce evidence as well as case law to support their plea. The original authority shall examine the case with open mind and give a detailed speaking order in the light of the evidence and also in terms of the description of goods in the notification. Thus both the Revenue appeals are allowed by way of remand of the original authority for de novo consideration.
(pronounced & dictated in open Court)