Mrs. SUNANDA BHANDARE ( 1 ) THE petitioner company carries on mining operations. For its mines situated at Khetri Nagar known as khetri Copper Products , it imported an equipment called drifter Drill which is known as Model 35 DR Reversible Rotation Drifter manufactured by Farukwa Rock Drills Sales Company Limited, Japan. These are long hole Drifter Drills which according to the petitioner were eminently suited for long hole drilling for mining operations and was essentially mining machinery . Upon import, customs duty on the said machinery was levied under Tariff Item 72 (b) of the Indian Customs Tariff at the rate of 35% ad valorem. Certain accessories and spare parts were also imported along with the said Drifter Drills and were assessed at different rates of duty. The petitioner filed an application for refund dt. 12-6-70 claiming classification of the equipment under Item 72 (18) ICT at the rate of 10% as mining machinery . A printed catalogue published by the Farukwa Rock Drills Sales Company Limited, Japan relating to the said equipment was also filed by the petitioner in support of the refund application. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, rejected the said refund application by order dt. 26-6-70. The appeal filed by the Petitioner against the said order was also rejected by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay by order dt. 21-4-71. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner (Revision Application) Government of India and by Order dt. 9-2-72, the said revision petition was also rejected. The Revisional Authority held that "the goods in question are rock drills and parts thereof. Rock drills are not specially designed for use in mining and they are not mining machinery within the meaning of Item No. 72 (18) ICT". The petitioner contended that the said order was passed without even giving a personal hearing to the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE present writ petition was filed challenging the aforesaid order of the Revisional Authority, inter alia, contending that the Revisional Authority had no evidence on record to come to the conclusion set out above. Apart from the above Drifter Drills imported by the petitioner for its mines at Khetri Copper Complex, the petitioner also imported a consignment of 28 packages of machinery and spares Ex. s. s. jagshanti from U. S. A. against Bill of Entry No. Cash-4434, dt. 21-9-66. Apart from the above Drifter Drills imported by the petitioner for its mines at Khetri Copper Complex, the petitioner also imported a consignment of 28 packages of machinery and spares Ex. s. s. jagshanti from U. S. A. against Bill of Entry No. Cash-4434, dt. 21-9-66. The said consignment also contained rock drilling equipment required for copper mining known as Shaft Drill Jumbos. In respect of these shaft drill Jumbos the petitioner had also filed a refund application contending that the same should be classified as mining machinery. Upon rejection of the said refund application, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector of Customs who accepted the petitioner s contention that the said equipment was mining machinery. The Revisional Authority had issued a review notice dt. 8-2-74 (Annexure-L) for setting aside the said order of the Appellate Collector. During the pendency of the said review notice before the Revisional Authority, it transpired that for similar equipment the issue was pending before this Court in the above writ petition. Accordingly by letter dt. 17th Mar. 1975 (Annexure-N) the Revisional Authority sought confirmation from the petitioner whether the goods in question in this writ petition as well as in the review notice pending before the Revisional Authority were similar. Thereupon, the petitioner clarified by letter dt. 7-5-74 (Annexure-O) that the equipment concerned in both the proceedings was similar. Ultimately, after reviewing the affidavits and other documentary evidence on records, the revisional authority accepted the petitioner s contention that the said shaft drill Jumbos could only be classified as mining machinery and discharged the review notice by order dt. 13-11-79 (Annexure-M ). ( 3 ) THE petitioner has clarified that the said shaft Drill Jumbos are also drifter Drills required for long hole drilling in mines and performed the same function as the Drifter Drills which are the subject matter of this writ petition. It is clarified that only additional facility available in Shaft Drill Jumbos is that it also has device of automatic shafting of position, to facilitate the movement of the equipment so as to more conveniently shift it in another direction for drilling long holes. Both the equipments are essentially of the same nature and perform the same function. It is clarified that only additional facility available in Shaft Drill Jumbos is that it also has device of automatic shafting of position, to facilitate the movement of the equipment so as to more conveniently shift it in another direction for drilling long holes. Both the equipments are essentially of the same nature and perform the same function. As such, it is contended by the petitioner that since the Revisional Authority has already accepted that such Drifter Drills are essentially a mining machinery, the present writ petition should also be allowed on the same basis. ( 4 ) THE petition has also placed on records the following documents : (I) Certificate issued by M/s Marubeni Corporation who had exported the said drifter drills to the petitioner supplied by M/s Farukwa Mining Company certifying that these drifter drills are "essentially for mining purpose only and are not used normally for any other job" (Annexure-H to the writ petition ). (ii) Certificate from the Director General of Mines Safety certifying that the "34 sets of Furukwa 35 D. R. reversible drifters are mining machinery and will be used purely for mining operations at the Khetri Copper Project (Annexure-I to the writ petition ). (iii) Certificate from the director of Mines and Geology. Government of Rajasthan, Udaipur (Annexure-K to the writ petition ). (iv) Certificate from the Mining Officer to the Government of India, Ministry of Steel and Mines, Department of Mines (Annexure-J to the writ petition ). (v) Affidavit of Mr. Owen Robert Wray a mining expert from Canada associated with Colombo Plan in India certifying that the equipment in question is "essentially designed for long hole drilling and is predominantly used and eminently suitable for drilling holes for mining operation" and that such equipment was known as "mining machinery". He further clarified that "such long hole drifter drills should not be confused with the rock drills ordinarily used to drill short holes". ( 5 ) IT may also be noted that reference to the above documents was specifically made in paras 15 to 19 of the writ petition and in reply thereto the respondents have merely stated that the said certificates and affidavits have no bearing to the issue in question. The respondents have not placed any material on record to controvert the aforesaid certificates or affidavits relied upon by the petitioner. The respondents have not placed any material on record to controvert the aforesaid certificates or affidavits relied upon by the petitioner. On the contrary, the respondents have admitted in paras 6 and 19 of the counter-affidavit that the equipment in question "may be predominantly used and eminently suitable for drilling holes for mining operations". ( 6 ) KEEPING into consideration the fact that the Revisional Authority has itself held similar equipment to be mining machinery and the uncontroverted material on record in the form of certificates from independent authorities and affidavits clearly describing the said equipment as mining machinery and explaining its functions and uses, this writ has to be allowed. ( 7 ) THE order of the Revisional Authority dt. 9-2-72 (Annexure-G), order dt. 21-4-71 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs (Annexure-E) and order dt. 26-6-70 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay (Annexure-C) relating to the import of Drifter Drills by S. S. State of Maharashtra are set side. Consequently, the petitioner will be entitled to the refund of excess customs duty which they have already paid and which was wrongly charged. Since the case pertains to the year 1970, it is directed that the excess customs duty is refunded to the petitioner within eight weeks from today. There will be no order as to costs.