ORDER
S.D. Jha, Member (J)
1. The question for decision in this appeal originally filed as Revision application to the Government of India, is whether the appellants in respect of the import of bearings by B.E. Cash No. 740/Air., dated 13-11-1979 are entitled to concession under Notification No. 35/79-Cus., dated 15-2-1979, as amended. The Assistant Collector of Customs by his order dated 22-8-1980 rejected the appellants claim for reassessment under the said notification on the ground that the goods did not figure in the Schedule to the said notification. The order was upheld in appeal by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay by his order despatched on 17-1-1981. Hence this appeal.
2. In the grounds of appeal, the appellants have urged that imported bearings are required for the assembly/manufacture of Milling Machines and that they are eligible to avail concessional rate of duty under the notification for which they have completed the necessary formalities.
3. At the hearing of the appeal, Shri Prem Prakash, Purchase Officer of the Appellants represented the Appellants and argued that though bearings themselves may not have been mentioned in the Notification, the machine for which the bearings were imported were mentioned there. He also submitted that Government of India in their revisional jurisdiction in the case of the Appellants themselves (Order No. 385-D to 416B of 1981) granted Appellants concession of the notification on similar facts and circumstances. He also submitted that there was an anomaly in Notification No. 35/79-Cus., dated 15-2-1979, in that it was not clear in terms of the said Notification whether Tariff Item No. 84.62 should itself figure therein or whether it would be sufficient if the machine for which parts specified under the aforesaid Heading does, for availing of the benefit of the said Notification. This anomaly, he stated, was removed by a subsequent Notification No. 179-Cus., dated 4-9-1980.
4. On behalf of the respondent, Shri K.V. Kunhikrishnan, Departmental Representative agreed that there was an anomaly in the Notification No. 35/79-Cus., which was removed by Notification No. 179-Cus., dated 4-9-1980. Notification No. 179-Cus., could be said to be clarificatory and he had no objection if Appellants were given the benefit of Notification No. 179-Cus.. subject of course of Appellants fulfilling other terms and conditions stipulated by the Notification.
5. We have seen both the aforesaid Notifications. To avail of either, it is essential that the Appellants have to plead and prove that the machine for which the parts under Heading 84.62 were being imported is itself specified under one or the other of the Headings enumerated in any of the aforesaid Notifications. The Appellants had singularly failed to do this. There is nothing on the record to show that the parts in question are required for a particular machine which falls under a specific heading enumerated in any of the Notifications.
6. In the result the Appeal fails and is dismissed.