1. Vice President in the open court on 13.1.1984. M/s. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., Pune have preferred a Revision Application dated 31.12.1976 to the Government of India against the Order-in-appeal No.S-49-1261/1976-R, dt. 30.11.1976, passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, which has been transferred to the Tribunal and is now being considered as appeal.
2. The short point in dispute in this appeal relates to classification of "DEUTZ F 4 1 912 Diesel Engines" cleared by the appellants vide Bill of Entry Cash No. 3971 dt. 23.3.1976. The goods were declared as "Vertical 4 Cylinder HP-55 2300 RPM" and were assessed to duty under Item 75(10)(i) of I.C.T. The claim for reassessment of these goods under Item 72(a) was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs and by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay. It is not in dispute that the Engines in question find predominant use in Agricultural Tractors.
3. Shri G.D. Deshpande, Manager Excise of the appellants, appearing on their behalf has referred to Item 72(a) of the Indian Customs Tariff, as it then existed, to show that the Tractors are specifically assessable under the said Item 72(a) of I.C.T., accordingly, he further argued (hat the imported engines which are admittedly used in the Tractors should be assessed to duty under Item 72(3) or alternatively under Item 72(a) as Prime movers. He also referred his claim for refund of countervailing duty, although, no such claim has been made in the Revision Application or even before the lower authorities.
4. Shri K.V. Kunhikrishnan, learned Departmental Representative in his submissions, has contended that the engines imported by the appellants could find use in Motor Vehicles. However, no evidence to this effect has been produced by him.
5. Since the engines in question are undoubtedly meant for use in the Agricultural Tractors, the Bench is of the view that they should be assessed under item 72(a) and not under item 75(10)(i) of the I.C.T. As to claim of countervailing duty, since no claim for refund of countervailing duty had been agitated in the Revision application or even before the lower authorities we do not propose to deal with it.
The appeal is allowed to the extent stated above with consequential relief to the appellants.