ORDER
S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 298/94-BCH dated 26.4.1994 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. In this case, the refund claim filed by the appellants was rejected. The Ld. Counsel, Shri J.S. Agarwal appeared on behalf of the appellants submitted that the Assistant Collector of Customs before rejecting the refund claim had not granted any opportunity to substantiate the claim. He submitted that the Assistant Collector of Customs in the adjudicating order held that the appellants has failed to submit Original Triplicate Bill of Entry, Original Customs attested Invoice. He submitted that no notice to produce these documents was ever given to the appellants. He also submitted that in the Appeal Memorandum before the Collector of Customs which was reproduced in the impugned order that no finding was given on the issue raised by the appellants. He, therefore, prayed that the matter be remanded.
2. Heard Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR appeared on behalf of the respondents/Revenue. In this case, the appellants made a consignment of Bagging and Weighing Machinery and spare parts. The goods were assessed under Heading No. 8422.30 of the Customs Tariff. While rejecting the refund claim, the Assistant Collector of Customs held that the appellants has failed to submit Original Triplicate Bill of Entry, Original Customs Attested Invoice. From the record, we are unable to find whether any notice was issued to the appellants to produce these documents on the basis of which refund claim was rejected.
3. In the impugned order in para 7, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay held as under:
7. In import documents the machine has been described as ‘Bagging and Weighing Machinery’. No catalogue/technical literature of the machine has been submitted. Prima facie, the function of the machine appears to be to weigh a pre-determined quantity and then bag it. On this count, the machine appears to have been correctly assessed under sub-heading 8423.30. The appellants have done nothing to contradict this except contending that the machine is basically for packing with weighment as the subsidiary function. The contentions of the appellants have not been supported with the help of catalogue/technical literature of the machine. In view of the above, I reject the appeal as substantiated.
4. The Collector of Customs reproduced the points raised in the Appeal Memorandum filed by the appellants in para 4 of the impugned order but no finding on the issues raised in the Appeal Memorandum was given by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. Therefore, we find that the impugned order is non-speaking. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Customs for deciding the refund claim afresh filed by the appellants after affording an opportunity to appellant to present their case, if they so desired. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand. Ordered accordingly.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 27.3.1998.