ORDER
S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). In the impugned Order the benefit of Notification No. 23/98-Cus. dated 2-6-98 was denied to the appellants.
2. The appellants made import of one second-hand machine and declared the same in the Bill of Entry as Shoe Stitcher. The Bill of Entry was assessed and the appellants paid duty. Thereafter, the appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) claiming the benefit of the Notification No. 23/98-Cus. The Commissioner (Appeals) denied the benefit of notification on the ground that the claim was not made before the assessing officer and the appellants had not produced any documents or catalogue of the machine in question to prove their claim.
3. Heard both the sides.
4. The appellants are claiming benefit of Notification No. 23/98-Cus. mentioned at Sri. No. 141, Sri. No. 141 of notification covers outsole Stitching machine. The contention of the appellants is that the machine in question is outsole stitching machine, therefore, they are entitled for concessional rate of duty.
5. The appellants had not claimed this benefit of the notification in the Bill of Entry. The appellants claimed the benefit first time before the Commissioner (Appeals) and without any evidence to show that the machine in question is outsole stitching machine. As the appellants had not produced any evidence in support of their claim before the Commissioner (Appeals) nor before us in the present appeal, we find no infirmity in the impugned Order. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.