1. M/s. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., Madras (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) filed a Revision Application against the Order No.C3/1992/1980 dt. 23.3.81 of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras which was passed in relation to the order dated 1st of May, 1980, passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refunds) in respect of Bill of Entry No. Air D121 dated 3.10.79. The said Revision Application has been transferred to the Tribunal as appeal under Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. The appellant imported 40 Welding Capillaries Tungsten which were detailed in the Bill of Entry as Wire Bonding Tip Type EBB-01-SM and which are statedt in the 'description of goods' in the said Bill of Entry as "Tools". A refund claim was made but was rejected by the Assistant Collector by observing that the appellant did not produce necessary documents/evidence as detailed below, in spite of a specific letter dated 8th of April, 1980- 3. The assessee failed in its first appeal and in para 2 the Appellate Collector has observed that though a letter was issued on 16th of August, 1980, the appellant did not product the necessary evidence in support of their contention that the goods could not be termed as tools to attract c.v. duty under Item 51A of C.E.T The Appellate Collector also stated that the goods in the Bill of Entry were amplified to be wire bonding tip and further stated to be "tools".
4. For the appellant Shri K.S. Krishnamoorthy, Dy. Regional Manager, Madras appeared and though he accepted that the appellant had failed to adduce the necessary evidence and information as required by the Assistant Collector as also the Appellate Collector, wanted us to analyse the goods which were imported. He persistently argued that tool is something which is used by hand or by mechanical system to work on metals etc. He also submitted that we should involve ourselves in deep study as to what for the goods were imported and used. On a query from the Bench he did not even allege much less prove that the Assistant Collector of Customs or Appellate Collector did not give sufficient opportunity and, therefore, their orders could be said to be wrong or perverse.
5. For the Revenue Shri M. Chatterjee very strongly pleaded that in the given circumstances, the Appellate Collector's order could not be different.
6. Since in our considered opinion both the Assistant Collector of Customs and the first appellate authority gave reasonable opportunity to the appellant to prove its case and issued even specific letters for the purpose, details of which are given above, we find no occasion or justification to involve ourselves with the case as investigating agency. The short question before us is whether the customs authorities have been unfair to the assessee or their orders on the face of it can be said to be palpably wrong or unjustified. We see no trace of these projected from the orders as such. In the Bill of Entry itself imported goods were mentioned as "tools". The appellant should have led necessary evidence to come out of situation, created by its action at appropriate stages. Therefore, confirming the order in appeal, we dismiss the appeal.
7. Before parting we would like to place on record that the appellant is a public undertaking and we hope to be understood in proper perspective even if we only observe that Government agencies should not be found lacking in presenting their cases properly.