Cc Vs. Kirloskar Cummins Ltd.

.....no. 68. the collector of customs (appeals) under his order dated 12.2.1986 observed that the imported parts were to be used in diesel engines, which were to be used in non-vehicular type of industrial engines. the importers were engaged in the manufacturer of bull-dozers, cranes, oil drilling rigs, marine compressors, etc. these goods were using the diesel engines in which the imported parts were to be fitted. he held that the imported parts being only fit for use in the diesel engines meant for non-vehicular industrial engines were classifiable for the purposes of countervailing duty under item no. 68 of the tariff. he also observed that under item no. 29 of the erstwhile central excise tariff, the parts of engines were not covered. as the goods imported were not parts of motor vehicles, he allowed the appeal of the importers.2. the matter was fixed for hearing on 4.3.1998. when the matter was called, none appeared for the respondents. as the matter is old, in as much as the goods were imported in the year 1983, we are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing shri r.s. sangia, jdr, who is present for the appellants/revenue.3. we have carefully considered the matter. the revenue had contended that one of the applications of diesel engines was for vehicular application in the assembly of dumpers and us dumpers were motor vehicles, the parts imported were not eligible for classification under item no. 68.4. we consider that the collector of customs (appeals) had referred to the application of parts imported in non-vehicular type of industrial engines. the revenue has not contradicted these observations of the appellate authority and had only mentioned that at the time of import it had not been substantiated that the parts were only for non-vehicular application. in view of the findings of the appellate authority, we do not agree with these contentions of the revenue.5. taking all the relevant facts and circumstances into account, we do not find.....