Full Judgment
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Oil & Natural Gas Commission had imported repair kit and packing set for plunger in FMC pump. The appellants had filed refund claims, and had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 197/76-Cus., dated 2nd August, 1976. The learned Assistant Collector had observed that the goods under import i.e. repair kit and packing set required for FMC pump which itself was a component of blow out preventer, and had held that the benefit of exemption notification could not be extended to a component of a component, and had rejected the refund claims. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid orders passed by the Assistant Collector, the respondents has filed appeals before the Collector of Customs (Appeals). Before the Collector (Appeals) it was contended that the repair kits and packing sets for plungers were for FMC Pumps which are component parts of blow out preventers. The relevant portion of General Catalogue 1980-81 was shown to substantiate the appellants' contention that repair kit and plunger packing were specific component parts of duplex and triplex pumps 5.25 in turn and were components of blow out preventers. These articles and components were required to be used in connection with the exploration of oil and Oil and Natural Gas Commission was engaged in exploration for mineral oil or gas. Blow out preventer was the article which was specified in this schedule and repair kits and the packing kits sets for plungers were for FMC pumps which were component parts of blow out preventers. The learned Collector (Appeals) had observed that the repair kit and the packing sets are components in their own rights of the blow out preventers system and could also be considered as identified as components of the pumps which was a sub-assembly of blow out controls. He had held that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of notification and had allowed the appeals. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the revenue has come in appeal before the Tribunal.
3. Shri C.V. Durghayya, the learned JDR who has appeared on behalf of the appellant has reiterated the facts. He has pleaded that the imported parts are components part of a sub-assembly and was not a component part of the main system itself, and the benefit of Notification No. 197/76-Cus., dated 2nd August, 1976 cannot be extended to the components of component. He has pleaded that no reliance can be placed on the catalogue as there is no mention of the part numbers. He has pleaded for the acceptance of the appeals. Shri D.D. Kakkar, Senior Deputy Director who has appeared on behalf of the respondents has relied on the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), and he has also filed the photo copy of the General Catalogue 1980-81 and also part list. He has pleaded for the rejection of the appeals.
4. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We have perused the invoice, general catalogue 1980-81 and also the catalogue containing part numbers. In the list part number of pump assembly repair kit has been mentioned as 3001-4199. In description column of the invoice it has been mentioned 3001-4199 repair kit for FMC pump and packing set for plunger FMC pump (3001-3205) has been mentioned in the invoice. In the part catalogue filed by the respondent, part No. 3001 is there - but 3205 is not there. There is specific mention of the same in the invoice. Apparently the mention of part number in the invoice and the general catalogue also shows that the pump is a part of the system. We do not find any merit in the appellant's contention that a part of a sub-assembly is not covered by the notification. On the contrary, we agree with the reasoning of the learned Collector (Appeals), C.R. Building, New Delhi.
We do not find any error in the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). We do not find any merit in the appeals, the appeals are dismissed. The present appeals are being allowed keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case, and it will not be^a precedent for other cases.