1. This Appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 10-11-1989 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras.
2. The Appellants imported carbide tipped circular cutter and claimed classification under C.T.A. 82.08 read with 84.74 as Knives for machinery used in shaping or moulding ceramic paste, stones, hardened cement etc. The claim was rejected by the Collector (Appeals) on the ground that knives are not parts of composite machine which is employed in shaping or moulding of the goods specified under C.T.A. 84.74. These on the other hand are meant for fitment into separate machine with motor for cutting hard materials like Asbestos cement etc.
3. Arguing for the Appellants the ld. Counsel vehemently contests the findings arrived at by the Collector. He submits that these knives are not fitted into machine for cutting hard materials. The knives are fitted into machine for cutting wet absestos pastes to give it a shape.
In this view of the matter therefore these knives cannot be considered as fitments into a machine specified in C.T.A. 84.64.
4. Arguing for the Revenue the ld. DR submits that what is relevant here is not so much the function of the machine but the character of the machinery in which these are fitted.
4.2. Ld. Counsel has produced the catalogue only in regard to these cutters but has not produced any catalogue of the machinery itself into which these are fitted.
4.3. He also submits that there is no evidence produced in regard to actual assessment of the Asbestos sheet making machinery for Central Excise purpose. Unless such evidence is produced along with necessary catalogue the claim of the appellants contesting the findings arrived at by the Collector (Appeals) cannot be accepted.
5. We have heard both sides. The catalogue indicates that tripped Bevel knives are for cutting wet fibres, cement and similar type of material.
It is contended by the Appellants that the cutter is fitted in the Asbestos cement sheets manufacturing plant and machinery for cutting green (wet) Asbestos cement sheets lengthwise and breadthwise and these cutters are primarily designed for this purpose.
6. As contended by the ld. DR the appellants have not substantiated their claim while contesting the findings arrived at by the Collector (Appeals). While Collector (Appeals) has held that these are designed for machines for cutting hard surfaces they have taken contrary claim that these indeed are made for cutting only wet material. We are of the view, as conceded by both sides during the hearing, that this being a question of fact would have to be looked into by way of remand. The actual character of the machinery in which these are actually fitted would have to be looked into to ascertain whether any of these machines would merit classification under Heading 84.74 or 84.64. This can be done only if the appellants either produce necessary catalogue and literature of the finished machine before the authorities concerned or the character of the machinery is ascertained through actual inspection of such machines.
7. In view of this we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authorities for de novo decision in the light of these observations after observing the principle of natural justice.