ORDER
I.J. Rao, Member (T)
1. In this appeal the point involved is the as sessment of goods imported by the appellants under Bill of Entry Cash No. HD-2227, dated 27-5-1983. The goods are stated to be parts of electrical line telephone apparatus imported by the appellants, M/s. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. for the installation of a 30000 line Telephone Exchange at Rai Bareily. Shri D’Costa for the appellants sub mitted that the parts were imported in SKD/CKD condition and all the parts constituted a Telephone Exchange.
2. The Asstt. Collector rejected the claim for re-classification under Heading 85.13 CTA, and for consequential refund on the ground that the goods are “various spares charaged separately”. Shri D’Costa submitted that the imported goods are not parts but a full Telephone Exchange in CKD/SKD condition.
3. Shri J. Gopinath, Ld. SDR submitted that if the appellants can prove that the imported goods are a Telephone Exchange in SKD/CKD condition, there would be a case for classification under Heading 85.13. The Ld. SDR pointed out that the appel lants could not prove so before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), as can be seen from the impugned order.
4. We have considered the arguments of both sides. Shri D’Costa submitted that it is not factually correct to say that the appellants did not produce the documents before the Collector. He referred to a letter dated 30.8.86 from the appellants to the Collector wherein it was explained that the concerned documents to prove the claim of appellants were lying with the Asstt. Collector of Customs.
5. We have taken note of this letter also and the pleas made by Shri D’Costa. Shri D’Costa submits that the appellants have the purchase order, drawings, catalogue and Ors. documents with the help of which they can prove that the imported goods were components and integral parts of Telephone Exchange classified under Heading 85.13 CTA read with Notification No. 172/77-Cus. He stated that he has brought these docu ments here and has offered to explain the contents to prove his claim.
6. We feel that the Collector of Customs (Appeals) was not correct in rejecting the appeal on the ground that the appellants did not submit the documents. The appellantsietter dated 30th August,1986 shows otherwise. The Asstt. Collector was con sequently wrong in holding that the imported goods were “spares” as these were claimed to be parts of Telephone Exchange in CKD/SKD condition. We do not find it practicable to go into the documents at this level.
7. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand the mat ter to the Asstt. Collector with the direction that he should give a fresh opportunity to the appellants to prove that the imported goods are a Telephone Exchange in CKD/SKD condition. He should then pass an order on the request of the appellants for re-classifica tion of the goods under Heading 85.13 read with Notification and for consequential refund.
8. The appeal is, thus, allowed by remand.