1999(03)LCX0136

IN THE CEGAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, MADRAS

S/Shri S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and V.K. Ashtana, Member (T)

COMMISSIONER OF CUS., MADRAS

Versus

LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS LTD.

Final Order No.624/99, dated 25-3-1999 in Appeal No. C/1956/92-B

CASE CITED

Gujarat Steel Tubes Industries v. Collector — 1994(02)LCX0090 Eq 1994 (071) ELT 0756 (Tribunal) — Followed [Paras 3, 5, 6]

Advocated By : Shri S. Sankaravadivelu, JDR, for the Appellant

Shri M.S. Kumaraswamy, Consultant, for the Respondents.

[Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member(J)]. - This is a Revenue appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. C3/160/92 dated 30-6-1992 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras holding that the imported item namely ‘slitting saws’ are classifiable under sub-heading 8202.20 of the tariff and not under chapter heading 98.06.

2. Revenue is aggrieved with this order and seeks for restoration of Order-in-Original confirming demand notice issued on the ground that impugned goods are correctly classifiable only under Heading 98.06 as parts of machinery as against original assessment under Heading 82.02 as “saws”.

3. Ld. D.R. points out that the issue is no longer res integra and the Bench of Five Members constituting as Larger Bench in the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Industries v. C.C. Bombay as reported in 1994(02)LCX0090 Eq 1994 (071) ELT 0756 (Tribunal) has held that Circular Saw Blades (Friction Type) are required to be classified only as parts of machinery falling under Chapter 84 of C.E.T. though classifiable under Heading 98.06. He submits that this judgment by majority has held that the item is required to be classified only under Heading 98.06 and also that they are not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 69/87-Cus. dated 1-3-1987.

4. Ld. Consultant reiterates the grounds taken-up by the importer in the matter before the Collector (Appeals) and seeks for dismissal of the appeal on those grounds.

5. On careful consideration of the submissions, we notice that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has already gone into the issue in great detail and has held that “Saws” are parts of machinery falling under Chapter 84 and in view of the structure of the tariff parts also falls under Chapter 98.06 and has held that the item is required to be classified only under 98.06. The Larger Bench has also examined the applicability of Notification No. 69/87 and have opined that in view of Sl. No. (xi) of the proviso, the items in question are excluded from the benefit of notification.

6. In that view of the matter, respectfully following the Larger Bench judgment as above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Equivalent 2000 (117) ELT 791 (Tribunal)