1. All these appeals involving common question of law and facts were heard together and are being disposed of by this order.
2. Before proceeding with the matter, applications for change in the cause title by substituting M/s. F.G.P. Ltd. for M/s. CEAT Tyres of India Limited were considered and allowed.
3. The appellants imported 'Blades for Chopped Strand Cutter'. These blades are used for cutting glass fibre into chopped strands. These were assessed to duty under CTH 8208.90 read with 8479.89. They claimed refund on the ground that goods were assessable under 8441.10 CTA and under 8479.89. They also subsequently requested for assessment under Notification No. 153/86 and Notification No. 313/86 and alternative claim was made for classification under 8464.90 in regard to the main machine of which the impugned goods constitutes a part.
4. The learned Advocate submits that they accepted the claim for the impugned goods under 8208.90. However, the main machine would be classifiable under 8464.90. This is strongly opposed by the learned DR, who submits that the description under 8464.90 refers to 'machine tools for cold working glass', and the impugned goods on which the machine tools is expected to work are not cold glass.
6. On hearing both sides, we are satisfied that as against 8464 (sic) which refers to 'machine-tools for working stone, ceramics, concrete, asbestos-cement or like mineral materials or for cold working glass' 8479.89 would be more appropriate as the goods of which the impugned goods form part could appropriately be considered as 'machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere'. They are therefore, not covered by Notification No. 59/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987 as correctly held by the authorities below. At this stage, however, a plea was made by the learned Advocate that 82.08 in regard to 'rate applicable' indicates the rates applicable to the 'machine or mechanical appliances with which the knife or the cutting blade is designed to be used'. They had pleaded before the Collector (Appeals) that the "rate applicable" would mean the effective rate and not the Tariff rate. The Collector (Appeals) however, has not given any finding on this aspect. Even if the machines are classifiable under 8479.89, they would still be eligible to benefit of Notification No. 313/86, dated 13-5-1986 for auxiliary duty. We agree with the contention of the learned Advocate, in this regard, keeping in view the ratio of the judgment in the case of Vishal Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 557. Rate applicable in such circumstances, would mean the effective rate of duty. Notification No. 313/86, dated 13-5-1986 against Sl. No.10 (xxxxii) indicates the goods classifiable only under CTH 8479. If department therefore, holds that the goods are classifiable under 8479, the benefit of this exemption Notification in regard to auxiliary duty would be available.
6.2. The learned Advocate makes an alternative plea with regard to exemption from basic duty under Notification No. 155/86. The learned DR submits that this claim cannot be made at this stage unless they fulfil the conditions of the Notification specified therein. We are however of the view that the plea regarding alternate benefit can be made even at the appellate stage but since it is a conditional Notification, we remand this matter to original authorities for the limited purpose of examining the entitlement to benefit under Notification 155/86. The appellants shall be heard before the decision is taken.