Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Lucas Tvs vs Collector Of Customs on 29 October, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1992(58)ELT330(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
Harish Chander, Vice President
1. M/s. Lucas-TVS, Padi, Madras-600050 has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Lucas-TVS Limited, Madras had imported various parts of Hitachi Vacuum Housing Assembly, Rotor Assembly, Centre Plate, O Ring (A), O Ring (B), Oil Seal and Ball Bearings, vide Bill of Entry G.M. No. 809/90 Line No. 93 dated 27th July, 1990. The appellants had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 33/88-Cus. and had sought clearance and wanted the goods to be assessed at the rate of 10% + 30% + C.V. nil. The appellants had contended that the goods were covered under Serial No. 2 (ii) of the said notification. The relevant entry in the said Notification No. 33/88-Cus. reads as under:-
Sl. No. 2 : Auto Electricals, viz., (i) Starter Motor & (ii) Alternator/Generator.
It was contended by the appellants before the Assistant Collector that the vacuum pump alternator is used on the fuel efficient light commercial vehicles and it was a new design and the vacuum pump works in congruence with Alternators. It was also contended that the design of the Alternator was such that the extended shaft of the Alternator drove the vacuum pump mechanism. This vacuum source was used by the vacuum assisted brake system of the vehicle. It was further contended by the appellants in the write-up dated 22nd August, 1990 that the design of 3 HA 15 alternator helps in eliminating a separate drive mechanism for the pump by using alternator as the prime mover. The Assistant Collector had observed that entry in Sl. No. 2 of the said Notification No. 33/88 extended the benefit only to the electrical parts. Admittedly, alternator is an electrical part and its function is to generate alternative current. He had further observed that it was admitted by the appellants themselves that the function of the vacuum pump was to create vacuum and to facilitate effective braking. The vacuum pump drives mechanical power from the extended shaft of the alternator for its functioning. It did not aid or improve the working of the functioning of the alternator. The alternator and the vacuum pump have got two different functions; the alternator belongs to electrical part whereas the vacuum pump belongs to mechanical part. When interpreting the notification, the notification had to be interpreted strictly. The notification extended the benefit only to the electrical part, viz., alternator and not to mechanical part. He had observed that the goods are to be assessed on merits without extending the benefit of Notification No. 33/88-Cus., dated 1st March, 1988 as amended. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras.
3. At the instance of Collector (Appeals) the appellant had produced samples of assembled and split alternator with vacuum pump, and during examination of the samples it was found that vacuum pump portion was detachable component which was attached to generator with the help of its extended shaft. The appellants had contended before the Collector (Appeals) that apart from the shaft being common to both the alternator and vacuum pump, oilseals as well as bearings, housed inside SRE were also common to both. It was also contended that even though the generator could function without the vacuum pump attached to it, such operation would be contrary to the basic design for this model of Alternator, and as such, it became an integrated unit only after the vacuum portion was attached to it. The appellants had contended that the benefit of Notification No. 33/88-Cus. was extendable to the parts imported by the appellants. Collector (Appeals) had observed that he had examined the samples as well as printed catalogue for 3HA 15-40 alternator with vacuum pump. He had observed that literature itself shows that it was an alternator with vacuum pump, and according to the literature, alternator with vacuum pump was designed as a battery charging unit for light commercial vehicles, and the vacuum pump was attached with the alternator to produce vacuum, to assist braking system. There are two models of such pumps which are available to suit individual requirements. To accommodate the vacuum pump, the electrical terminations of the alternator have been re-located on the SRE bracket. He had further observed that while describing the vacuum pump, the literature mentioned that it was a unit mounted on to the SRE bracket. The rotor of the vacuum pump was driven by the alternator shaft. It has 4 slots to accommodate the vanes. By varying the volume enclosed between the two vanes, air flows from the suction to delivery. Engine oil is supplied to the pump, for lubrication at a specified pressure and flow rate, through the oil inlet connector and the resultant vacuum is piped to the slump of the vehicle braking system. He had observed that it was clear that the vacuum pump was provided as a back-up for the braking system and the literature also gave necessary technical data separately for alternator and vacuum pump. He had further observed that issue for determination was whether parts required for the manufacture of such vacuum pump could be treated as parts required for the manufacture of alternators. He had observed that during the demonstrations of sample of alternator without the pump portion attached to it, it was evident that such alternator can be fitted into a vehicle and made functional. The vacuum pump when attached to such alternator in no way even remotely assisted in the functioning of the alternator. It was the extended shaft of the alternator which was used for driving the rotor of the vacuum pump. He was of the view that the pump portion was dependent on functioning of the generator/alternator and the alternator was in no way dependent on the functioning of the vacuum pump. With these observations the Collector (Appeals) had held that the parts required for the manufacture of vacuum pump were not eligible for concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 33/88. He had further observed that specially designed bearings and oil-seals which were housed inside the alternator which were common to both vacuum pump as well as alternator were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 33/88. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the appellant has come in appeal before the Tribunal.
4. Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, the learned advocate, has appeared on behalf of the appellant. He reiterated the facts. He pleaded that the appellant had imported integrated alternator with vacuum pump. He laid special emphasis on para No. 5 of the Collector (Appeals) Order where the Collector had made observations as to examination of samples of assembled and split of alternator with vacuum pump. Shri Lakshmi Kumaran pleaded that the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is not correct in law. He referred to DGTD Certificate and laid special emphasis on Serial Nos. 6, 7 and 16 of the list of items proposed to be imported by the appellants at concessional rate of duty with the DGTD certificate. Shri Lakshmi Kumaran referred to a Bombay High Court decision in the case of Bombay Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1982 (10) ELT 171 where the Bombay High Court had held that certificate issued by DGTD was binding on Customs authorities and the Customs authorities could not ignore or by-pass it on the ground that it was issued under mistake or misrepresentation. Shri Lakshmi Kumaran also referred to another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M.G. Abrol, Addl. Collector of Customs, Bombay and Anr. v. Shantilal Chhotelal& Co. and Ors. reported in AIR 1966 Supreme Court 197 where it was held in para 10 that we are not concerned in this case with sheet cuttings but only with other ferrous scrap. The Exports (Control) Order, the Schedule annexed thereto and the statement of Export Licensing Policy do not define skull scrap at all; skull scrap is what the officer thinks it is. The only restriction on the Controller giving a licence for export of scrap is that in his opinion is not usable in India; his opinion is final. For the purpose of his opinion he may describe or categorize the scrap in the manner convenient to him; but that does not make it anytheless an exportable scrap. In the circumstances it must be held that the licence covers only the scrap not usable in India. The description of the scrap has no relevance to its exportability. Shri Lakshmi Kumaran referred to another decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Bombay Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Appellate Collector of Customs reported in 1990 (49) ELT 190 where the Hon'ble High Court had held that where the certificates were granted by Director General of Technical Development or Director of Industries under the Notification, the same were binding and conclusive, and the Department was not empowered to question such certificates. Shri Lakshmi Kumaran referred to Section Note (II) of Section 16 where it provides that unless the context otherwise requires, composite machines consisting of two or more machines fitted together to form a whole and other machines adapted for the purpose of performing two or more complementary or alternative functions are to be classified only as a consisting of that component or as if that machine which performs the principal function. Shri Lakshmi Kumaran referred to other decision in the case of Collector of Customs v. Blue Star reported in [1990 (50) ELT 186 (Tri.) where this Tribunal had held that merely because a machine can perform other functions, the exemption could not be denied. The learned Advocate referred to another decision in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in 1990 (47) ELT 68 where the Tribunal had held that the concessional rate of duty not deniable merely because equipment in addition to its use for testing purpose in the automobile motor industry is also usable for general purposes. Shri Lakshmi Kumaran, learned Advocate, pleaded that in case the appellants' plea for treating as part of auto electricals alternator/generator is not accepted, then the same may be treated as part of brake assembly which falls under Sr. No. 5 of the Notification No. 33/88. He pleaded that vacuum pump is an essential part of brake assembly and its pneumatic or pressure pumps. Shri Lakshmi Kumaran, learned Advocate, has pleaded for the acceptance of the appeal.
5. Shri M.S. Arora, the learned JDR, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, stated that the appellants had imported various parts of Hitachi Vacuum Housing Assembly, Rotor Assembly, Centre Plate, O Ring (A), O Ring (B), Oil Seal and Ball Bearings. Shri Arora pleaded that these parts do not go to fall part of the alternator. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of alternators and not braking system. Whatever is fitted it is accompanied with the alternator. Shri Arora has referred to Collector (Appeals) order and has referred to para No. 4 of the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) where the appellants' own submissions have been recorded that the imported parts are to be used in the vacuum pump portion of the alternator is detachable and the alternator can work independently. He again referred to para No. 8 of the Collector (Appeals) order which appears on page 21 of the paper book where it is mentioned that vacuum pump is provided as a back-up for the braking system. Shri Arora referred to a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Wipro Products v. Union of India reported in 1986 (25) ELT 485 where the Bombay High Court had held that the diskettes are used on the machines so that the plans and designs are exhibited on the screen but that could not lead to the conclusion that it is a part of machine or accessory of the machine. The expression part of the accessory of the machine connotes that but for that part the machine would not function and the diskettes cannot be considered to be such a part. Shri Arora pleaded that in the present matter the alternator can function without vacuum pump. Shri Arora referred to another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dunlop India reported in 1983 (13) ELT 1566 where it was held that when there is no reference to the use of adaptation of the article, the basis of end use for classification under a tariff entry was absolutely irrelevant. Shri Arora also referred to another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Atul Glass Works v. Collector of Customs reported in 1986 (25) ELT 473 where in para Nos. 8 and 9 the Supreme Court had held that the classification of goods is made on the basis of primary function. Shri Arora also referred to another decision in the case of Collector of Customs v. O.E.N. India Ltd. reported in 1989 (42) ELT 235 (Tribunal) where it was held that Interpretative Rules or Section Notes etc., governing Customs/Excise Tariff inapplicable for interpreting a notification. Lastly, Shri Arora pleaded that while interpreting a notification there is no scope for any intendment. In support of his argument, he referrd to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hemraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Asst. Collector of C.E. & Customs, Surat and Ors. [reported in 1978 (2) ELT (J 350) (SC)] and in para No. 5 it was held that all that was required for claiming exemption in terms of these notifications was that the cotton fabrics must be produced on powerlooms owned by a co-operative society. There is no further requirement under these two notifications that the cotton fabrics produced by the co-operative society must be "for itself. Shri Arora, Ld. JDR, further referred to a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Uma Arts Studio v. Collector of Customs reported in 1989 (40) ELT 115 where the Tribunal had held that mere endorsement by the ITC authorities was not sufficient for grant of benefit of project import. Shri Arora pleaded that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the lower authorities. He has pleaded for upholding of the findings of the lower authorities and thereby dismissal of the appeal.
6. In reply, Shri Lakshmi Kumaran, Ld. Advocate, again pleaded for the acceptance of the appeal and also referred to another decision in the case of Tata Oils Mills reported in 1989 (43) ELT 183 where the Hon. Supreme Court had held that any interpretation of statute or exemption notification the burden to prove on the claimant was not sufficient - object and the purpose of exemption and nature of actual process of manufacture involved also to be kept in mind and the difficulty in ascertaining the fulfilment of condition of exemption was not a criteria for the refusal of exemption. Shri Lakshmi Kumaran has pleaded for the acceptance of the appeal.
7. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We have considered the citations cited by both the sides. We have looked into the literature, viz., catalogue. On page 2 of the catalogue of the LUCASTVS 3HA Workshop Manual the general description as has been given is reproduced below:-
"1.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION 3HA 15-40 Alternator with vacuum pump is designed as a battery charging unit, for light commercial vehicles and commercial vehicles. A vacuum pump is attached with the Alternator to produce vacuum, to assist braking system. Two models of 30 cc and 50 cc pumps are available to suit individual requirements. The Alternator is designed for two lug mounting and secured by two bolts, a mounting lug which provides a means of adjusting the drive belt tension.
2.0 DESCRIPTION 3HA 15 Alternator with vacuum pump is a 3 phase 12 pole machine revolving field with stationary armature type. Output control is effected by varying the rotor excitation. The output A.C. current from the sator winding is rectified by means of a full wave bridge assembly. Auxiliary diodes provide rectification of the field. A fuse is provided on the positive line to protect the diodes in the event of an inadvertent battery reversal. An electronic regulator is housed in the Alternator itself. This electronic regulator maintains the voltage and regulates the charging rate by switching the rotor field current as required. To accommodate the vacuum pump, the electrical terminations of the Alternator have been relocated on the SRE bracket. Cooling is provided by a radial fan mounted on the rotor shaft at the drive end.
The vacuum pump unit is mounted on to the SRE bracket. The rotor of the vacuum pump is driven by the Alternator shaft. It has 4 slots to accommodate the vanes. By varying the volume enclosed between two vanes, air flows from the suction to delivery. Engine oil is supplied to the pump, for lubrication at a specified pressure and flow rate, through the oil inlet connector. The resultant vacuum is piped to the pump of the vehicle braking system. The vacuum pump on the Alternator is provided as a back-up for the braking system."
Collector (Appeals) had personally examined the assembled and split of alternator with vacuum pump on 4th October, 1990. Para Nos. 5 & 8 from the Collector (Appeals) order are reproduced below:-
"5. On request the appellant had produced samples of assembled and split of Alternator with vacuum pump on 4-10-1990. During examination of the samples, it was found that the vacuum pump portion is a detachable component which is attached to generator with the help of its extended shaft. It was explained by the representative that apart from the shaft being common to Both the alternator and vacuum pump, oil-seals as well as bearings, housed inside SRE are also common to both. They submitted that even though the generator can function without the vacuum pump attached to it, such operation would be contrary to the basic design for this model of Alternator. It becomes an integrated unit only after the Vacuum portion is also attached to it. They, therefore, submitted that the benefit of Notification No. 33/88 should be extended to parts imported by the appellants.
8. While describing the vacuum pump, the literature mentions that it is a unit mounted on to the SRE bracket. The rotor of the vacuum pump is driven by the Alternator Shaft. It has 4 slots to accommodate the vanes. By varying the volume enclosed between the two vanes, air flows from the suction to delivery. Engine oil is supplied to the pump, for lubrication at a specified pressure and flow rate, through the oil inlet connector. The resultant vacuum is piped to the pump of the vehicle braking system. It is significant to note that the literature makes it clear that the vacuum pump is provided as a back-up for the braking system. Further, the literature also gives necessary technical data separately for alternator and vacuum pump. The issue for determination is whether parts required for the manufacture of such vacuum pump can be treated as parts required for the manufacture of Alternators. It is not the appellant's case that the product alternator would not be functional without attachment of vacuum pump portion to it. On the other hand, during demonstrations of sample of the Alternator without the pump portion attached to it, it was evident that such alternator can be fitted into a vehicle and made functional. The vacuum pump when attached to such alternator in no way even remotely assists in the functioning of the alternator. It is the extended shaft of the alternator which is used for driving the Rotor of the vacuum pump. In other words, therefore, while the pump portion is dependent on functioning the Generator/Alternator, the Alternator is in no way dependent on the functioning of the vacuum pump."
A simple perusal of the general description and description from the LUCAS-TVS Workshop Manual shows that a vacuum pump is attached with the alternator to produce vacuum to assist braking system and detailed examination of the imported goods clearly show that alternator can independently function without the vacuum pump. The Collector (Appeals) has already extended the benefit of Notification No. 33/88-Cus. for bearings and oil-seals which are common for the use of the vacuum pump as well as alternator. Notification No. 33/88-Cus. dated 1st March, 1988, provides concessional rate of duty at S. No. 2(ii) Alternator/Generator. For the proper appreciation of the correct position, the relevant extract from the said notification is reproduced below:-
"goods (other than raw materials), falling under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), when imported into India for the manufacture of components of fuel-efficient light commercial vehicles, of payload not exceeding 4,000 kilograms, of the description specified in column (2) of the Table hereto annexed, from -
(a)...
(b)...
subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(1) the exemption contained in this notification shall be applicable only to those goods (other than raw materials) which are covered by lists certified by an officer not below the rank of an Industrial Adviser or Addl. Industrial Adviser in the Directorate Genl. of Technical Development to be required for the manufacture of the said components for use in the manufacture of light commercial vehicles;
The Table S. No. Description of the components (1) (2)
1. ...
2. Auto Electricals, namely:-
(i)...
(ii) Alternator/Generator
3. ...
4. ...
5. Brake Assemblies
8. Shri Lakshmi Kumaran, Ld. Advocate, during the course of argument, had laid heavy emphasis on decisions of the Bombay High Court and other courts, especially in the case of Bombay Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1982 (10) ELT 171 where it was observed that Customs authorities are bound to follow the DGTD certificates. Shri Arora, Ld, JDR, had cited the decision of Uma Arts Studio v. Collector of Customs reported in 1989 (40) ELT 115. Para No. 6 from the said judgment is reproduced below:-
"6. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld. advocate placed reliance on the Hon. Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Gujarat State Financial Corpn. v. Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and had argued that endorsement by the ITC authorities for the benefit of project import under Heading 84.66 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is sufficient enough for the grant of the benefit of the project import under Heading 84.66. The principle of promissory estoppel is not applicable in this case. The Customs authorities can come to an independent conclusion. The endorsement of the ITC authorities is not binding on them. The licences issued by the ITC authorities are to be seen only to the extent whether the importation is in accordance with the import policy or not. It is a settled law that the assessment has to be made by the customs authorities under the Customs Tariff Act in force at that time of importation. In the case of Photovisual, reported in 1984 (17) ELT 443 (Tribunal) the Tribunal had held that "the question whether a particular imported machinery would attract duty or not has to be decided by the Customs authorities. The letter granted by the Min. of Industries recommending a concessional customs duty would be in furtherance of the recognition of the appellant's establishment as a small scale industrial unit but would not help him. Hon. Madras High Court in the case of The Das Lab. v. Collector of Customs, Madras in Writ Petition No. 8398/1984 had held that before the benefit of Project Import under Heading 84.66 could be extended the appellant has to satisfy the following two conditions:-
(1) that the importer is a Unit registered either with the DGTD or with the State Director of Industries; and (2) that the said Unit qualifies as a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act.
The appellant's unit does not satisfy the second condition i.e. it does not qualify to be a factory under the Factories Act and as such we hold that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Project Import under Heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Shri Dandapani, the ld. advocate, had pleaded that the assessment should be made under Heading 90.07 whereas the impugned order shows that the appellant had made a claim under Heading 90.08 before the learned Appellate Collector of Customs and he had rejected the claim on the ground that this plea was not taken earlier before the Asstt. Collector. This claim for assessment under this heading had never been placed before the Asstt. Collector, the original authority. If the importers wish this head to be considered, they may place it before him for consideration, as such an assessment must be first considered by the first authority i.e. the Assistant Collector."
The Tribunal had occasion to deal with identical situation in the case of Photovisual, Calcutta v. CC, Calcutta reported in 1984 (17) ELT 443 (Trib.) where in para No. 5 in the relevant extract, had held as under:-
"The letter granted by the Ministry of Industries recommending a concessional Customs duty would be in furtherance of the recognition of the establishment of the appellants' unit as a small scale Industrial Unit. These documents would not advance the case of the appellants in this proceeding. The question whether a particular imported machinery would attract duty or not has to be decided by the Customs authorities. As the appellants' establishment is not carrying on any manufacturing activity, it was rightly held that the appellants would not be entitled to concessional rate of duty."
Shri Lakshmi Kumaran, ld. advocate, had also laid heavy reliance on Note 3 of Section 16 as to the principal function. The Tribunal in the case of CC v. O.E.N. Ltd. reported in 1989 (42) ELT 235 had held as under:-
"(5) We have considered the submission of both sides. We had occasion to inspect a sample of goods which was available on the file. The imported goods did not have any leads. Admittedly the leads have to be fixed by the importers. Shri Gopi Nath's argument in favour of application of Rule 2(a) of the Interpretive Rules (CTA) and for the application of the Section Note 2(a) of Chapter XVI cannot be accepted because we are interpreting a Notification and not the Tariff. On facts, as mentioned earlier, we agree with the submissions of the respondents that the imported goods are not resistors but part of resistors which ultimately go into a potentiometer. It is only resistors that are excluded from the concessional rate under Notification No. 172/77. In this view we dismiss the appeal."
There is no classification dispute, the dispute is only in respect of extending the benefit of notification. Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Hemraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Asstt. Collector of C.E. & Customs in para 5 had held that all that was required for claiming exemption in terms of these notifications was that the cotton fabrics must be produced on powerlooms owned by a co-operative society. There is no further requirement under these two notifications that the cotton fabrics produced by the co-operative society must be "for itself. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 33/88-Cus dt. 1st March, 1988 in respect of Serial No. 2(ii) Alternator/Generator. Accordingly, we confirm the findings of the lower authorities in this regard.
9. Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, learned Advocate, had taken an alternative plea before us for treating the vacuum pump as part of the braking system, for extending the benefit of Notification No. 33/88-Cus. at Sl. No. 5. In the grounds of appeal in column (G) which appears at page 9 of the paper book, the appellant had taken this plea. The same is reproduced below :-
"G. Notification No. 33/88 covers various components assemblies used in the manufacture of light commercial vehicles and includes apart from auto electricals brake assemblies also under Sl. No. 5 of the table attached to the notification. As already stated that vacuum pump is meant to assist the braking system. Hence if by any chance it is felt that the certain parts of the alternator model 3HA 15-40 cannot be held to be parts of alternators but parts of vacuum pump even then they will be eligible for concession as items required for brake assembly. The intention of the Govt. of India is to extend the concession to the indigenous manufacturers of items used in the manufacture of fuel efficient light commercial vehicles. The utilisation of this model of alternator is only a fuel saving method by which the alternator can be used for not only charging the battery but also for the creation of the vacuum to assist the braking system. It also helps in the fuel efficiency of the vehicle. It is therefore felt that the customs authorities should avoid hair splitting interpretations in such circumstances and extend the concession to all components imported under Notification No. 33/88.
The claim of benefit at Sl. No. 5 was neither agitated by the appellant before the Asstt. Collector nor before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), it has just been agitated before the Tribunal for the first time. There is no bar for raising this fresh plea before the tribunal for the first time in view of the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Gangappa Cables reported in 116 ITR 778. In a recent decision the Patna High Court in the case of Hindustan Malleables & Forgings Ltd. v. CIT reported in 191 ITR 110 had held that there is nothing in the Income Tax Act which restricts the Tribunal to the determination of questions raised before the departmental authorities. All questions, whether of law or of facts, which relate to the assessment of the assessee may be raised before the Tribunal. Since it was not agitated before the Asstt. Collector or before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), the alternative plea for extending the benefit of the notification has been taken under Serial No. 5 for the first time before the Tribunal as part of braking system, this fact was not examined by lower authorities whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 33/88 under Sl. No. 5 and so it was not examined by the adjudicating authority or by the first appellate authority. We are of the view that ends of justice will be met if we remand this matter to the Asstt. Collector having jurisdiction to examine whether the vacuum pump which is part of the alternator imported by the appellants is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 33/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988 at Sl. No. 5. With these observations, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.