Full Judgment
2. Shri V. Sridharan, learned advocate who has appeared on behalf of the appellants pleaded that bonafidely the appellants had filed the appeal before the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the form of a letter on 11-3-1985, i.e. within 3 months from the date of the communication of the order and the appeal fee was also paid vide Draft No. 139372 dated 23-2-1985 drawn on State Bank of India, New Delhi. He further pleaded that on receiving a communication from the Registry to the effect that the appeal should have been filed on Form No. CA-3 in terms of Customs Appellate Rules, 1962. Accordingly, the appellants had filed the appeal on Form No. CA-3. He pleaded that the appeal on plain paper and on CA-3 Form may be read together and it may be deemed that the appeal was filed within limitation.
3. Shri M. S. Arora, learned D.R. does not oppose the request of the learned Advocate.
4. After hearing both the sides, we hold that the appeal was received in the Registry within the statutory period. Now coming on the merits Shri V. Sridharan pleaded that the appellants had imported step and repeat machine and the original assessment was done under Heading 90.10 and additional CVD under Tariff Item 33D and the appellants claim was under Heading 84.34 without auxiliary or CVD. He pleaded that the lower authorities had rejected the claim of the appellants. Shri Sridharan argued that the matter is fully covered by the following judgments of the Tribunal :-Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Bharat Vijay Mills, Kalol.
1987 (12) ECR 29 - Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Photogravurs India (P) Ltd.Srinivas Fine Art v. Collector of Customs, Madras Shri Sridharan argued that in all the decisions the Tribunal had held that the goods are classifiable under Heading 84.40 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and in the case of Coronation Litho Works v. Collector of Customs 4. Shri M.S. Arora, learned JDR states that in view of the earlier decisions of the Tribunal he leaves it to the Bench but his arguments are the same which were adopted by Shri J. Gopinath in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Photogravurs India (P) Ltd. reported in 1987 (29) ELT 647 (Tribunal).
5. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts are not disputed. The appellants had imported the step and repeat machine. Respondent also states that it is covered by earlier judgments of the Tribunal. In view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Coronation Litho Works v.Collector of CustomsCollector of Customs, Bombay v. Photogravurs India (P) Ltd. reported in 1987 (29) ELT 647 (Tribunal); and Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Bharat Vijay Mills, Kalol reported in 1986 (24) ELT 662, we hold that step and repeat machine imported by the appellants is classifiable under Heading 84.40 Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the CVD is to be levied under Tariff Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff. Before we part with this matter, we would further like to observe that the appellants' refund claim shall stand restricted to the original amount claimed by them in their refund claim filed before the Asstt. Collector. Lower authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order. Since the import is of 1980, we shall appreciate if the consequential effect is given within 4 months from the date of receipt of the order.