ORDER
1. This is a Revision Application filed before the Central Govt. by the Appellant (Company) under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962 which stands transferred, under the provisions of Section 151-B ibid to the Appellate Tribunal. The Revision Application is to be disposed of by the Tribunal as if it were an appeal filed before it.
2. The goods whose classification is the subject matter of these proceedings have been described by the appellants as “Spare Parts of Earth Moving Machinery”. They were classified under various headings of the Customs Tariff Schedule and charged to the corresponding rates of duty. The Appellants are seeking re-assessment of goods so classified, on the basis that the classification was wrong.
3. At the stage of Original adjudication, as seen from the Assistant Collector’s Order-in-Original, the appellants had claimed that the classification of three of the items in the Bill of Entry should be under Heading No. 87.07, as against their Original classification by the Customs Authorities under Headings 84.62(3) and 87.04/06(1) of the Customs Tariff Schedule. At the appeal stage, as seen from the Order-in-Appeal, the Appellants sought re-classification of some of the goods under Heading No. 84.63 of the said Schedule.
4. In the said Revision Application, the appellants have prayed that the “following” spare parts (no list follows, but the reference is evidently to the goods under consideration) should be re-assessed under Heading No. 84.63, covering transmission shafts, cranks etc.
5. In support of his prayer for re-assessment, Shri Aggarwal wished to file a document which he described as a “blow-up”, and which appeared to be in the nature of an illustration. Shri Iyer, for the Respondent, strongly opposed the introduction of this new evidence at this stage. He pointed out that, as seen from the order-in-appeal, the appellants had not sought a personal hearing at the appeal stage. They had not submitted a catalogue. They had submitted photo copies of some documents ; even these were seen by the Appellate Collector to be somewhat indistinct. Shri Iyer submitted that it was incumbent on the appellants to furnish the necessary evidence in the proper manner before the lower authorities. Having failed to do so, they should not be permitted to produce it at this stage.
6. The Tribunal enquired from Shri Aggarwal why the “blow-up” was not submitted before the lower authorities. Shri Agarwal could not give any satisfactory reply on this point. The Tribunal observed that the appellants had not even availed themselves of the opportunity of a personal hearing before the Appellate Collector, and had not produced the documents in question at the original or appellate stage. It was not their representative’s contention that there was anything to prevent the document being submitted at an earlier stage. In the absence of any satisfactory reason for not submitting the document at an earlier stage, having regard to the objection from the representative of the Department, and as it could not be said that the appeal could not be decided without reference to this document, the Tribunal, under Rule 23 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, disallowed the filing of the new document in these proceedings.
7. Thereafter, Shri Aggarwal proceeded to argue his case on the basis of the documents already filed. He pointed out that in rejecting their claim for re-classification under Heading No. 84.63, the Appellate Collector had relied on Note 2 to Section XVII, the Section within which Chapter 87 of the Customs Tariff Schedule falls. According to him, the Appellate Collector erred in relying on this Section Note, and in not applying Heading No. 84.63, which was more specific for the goods in question, namely transmission parts.
8. Replying to Sh. Aggarwal, Shri Iyer pointed out that the goods in question were intended for use as part of fire tenders, which fell under Heading No. 87.03, covering “Special purpose motor lorries and vans”. Parts of fire tenders would prima facie fall under the same heading. Section Note 2 to Section XVII, which had been cited by the Appellate Collector, made it clear that “parts and accessories” of articles falling under this Section would not be taken to apply to “parts of engines and motors falling within Heading No. 84.63”. However, as observed by the Appellate Collector only such goods as could be considered to be “parts of engines” would fall within Heading No. 84.63 and other transmission parts would be classifiable in accordance with the normal principle of classification, as parts of the respective motor vehicles. The fact that some parts, namely bearings, had been classified under Heading No. 84.62, which specifically covered them, showed that there had been due application of mind by the lower authorities. Shri Iyer, therefore, submitted that the classification already made was correct and the appeal should be rejected.
9. The Tribunal has carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case, and the submissions made by both sides. The parts in question have been described in the invoice as “Canter shaft splined”, “Sleeve main shaft gear”, “Clutch main shaft slinger”, “Gear main shaft low” and “Bushing main shaft gear”. The Tribunal considers that the Appellate Collector was right in holding that even though these may be parts for purpose of transmission they are not parts of the engine. Accordingly, they have to be treated as parts of Special purpose motor vehicles, viz. fire tenders, which fall within Heading No. 87.03 and classified under the same heading. The Appellate Collector’s order was, therefore, correct and the Revision Application is accordingly rejected.