Polylefine Industries v. Collector — 1982(12)LCX0025 Eq 1983 (012) ELT 0357 (Tribunal) — Relied on                [Para 1]

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Collector — 1997(08)LCX0020 Eq 1997 (094) ELT 0687 (Tribunal) — Relied on              [Para 1]

Advocated By : Shri R. Raghavan, Advocate, for the Appellant.

Shri S. Sankaravadivelu, DR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal dated 10-1-1992 passed by Collector (Appeals), Chennai, holding that Pressure Transducers (Censors) are classifiable under Heading 9026.90 of the Customs tariff without the benefit of Notification No. 91/89 Customs and the prayer for classification under Heading 8541.50 of the said notification was rejected. The issue in the present case, is covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Polylefine Industries v. C.C.E. as reported in 1983 (012) ELT 357 and also in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. C.C. as reported in 1997 (094) ELT 687. In both these judgments the Tribunal has confirmed the view taken by the Collector (Appeals).

2. We have heard Shri R. Raghavan, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri Sankaravadivelu, learned DR for the Revenue.

3. On consideration of the submissions made we are of the considered opinion that no fresh points have been raised for reconsideration of the law laid down in the noted judgments and these judgments will apply to the present case on the principle involved therein inasmuch as that these two devices were with respect to the complete product i.e. transducers whereas admittedly in the present appeal, the goods involved are components thereof under new tariff. Since the complete transducers are classifiable under Heading 9026, therefore, parts and components thereof would also be classifiable therein i.e. under sub-heading 9026.90.

4. Since these are in the nature of semi conductors and is specifically mentioned under serial No. 6 of the table appended to the Notification No. 91/89, therefore, exemption contained therein would not be available here. In view of the aforesaid analysis we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.

_______

Equivalent 1999 (111) ELT 378 (Tribunal)

Equivalent 1999 (033) RLT 0537