1987(04)LCX0091

BEFORE THE CEGAT, SPECIAL BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI

S/Shri G. Sankaran, Vice-President and V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J)

H.M.T. LTD.

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

Order No. 286/87-D, dated 15-4-1987 in Appeal No. CD (SB) A. No. 1768/83-D

CASE CITED

H.M.T. LTD.-1987 (9) ETR 504........................................................................................................................... [PARA 4]

Advocated By : S/Shri C.L. Beri, Advocate and C.L. Sharma, Consultant, for the Appellants.

Shri K.C. Sachar, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : G. Sankaran, Vice-President]. - The goods imported by the appellants in respect of which the dispute arose before the lower authorities was what is described as ‘watch glasses’. The appellants had claimed the benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Customs Notification No. 240/78 dated 30-12-1978. This claim was rejected by the lower authorities and hence the present appeal.

2. We have heard Shri C.L. Beri, Advocate for the appellants and Shri K.C. Sachar, Departmental Representative for the respondent.

3. It had been submitted by the appellants before the Appellate Collector that the present goods though described as ‘watch glasses’, were, in fact, not made of glass but of acrylic sheets. There is no specific finding of the Appellate Collector on this particular contention though the Collector states that ‘watch glasses’ fell under heading 70.01/16 of the Customs Tariff Schedule. The Assistant Collector’s order is anything but a speaking order and but for filling in certain particulars is a cyclostyled proforma. At the commencement of the hearing before us. Shri Beri had prayed for quashing of the orders of the lower authorities and remanding the dispute to the Assistant Collector for de novo consideration but in the course of further arguments, he gave up this request and prayed that the Tribunal might itself give a decision on the merits of the dispute.

4. As earlier noted, the appellant’s contention is that the so-called watch glasses were made of acrylic sheets. This contention, though placed before the Appellate Collector, has not been controverted nor has any specific finding been recorded thereon. As such we have to proceed on the basis of the appellant’s assertion that these were indeed of acrylic sheets. If that be so, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants, the issue of classification of such goods has been settled by the Tribunal in another appeal of the present appellants themselves -1987 (9) ETR 504. The Tribunal had held in that case that the correct heading of the Tariff Schedule for watch glasses made out of acrylic material was 39.07 and not 70.01/16 keeping in view Statutory Note 3 to Chapter 91 of the Tariff Schedule.

5. Once the above position is reached, it follows that Customs Notification No. 240/78 has no application to the resent goods because that notification provides for concessional rate of duty in respect of watch parts etc. which fall under sub-heading (2) of Heading 91.01/11, only. Such not being the case here, the concessional rate of duty in terms of the said notification is not applicable.

6.In these circumstances, we hold that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the so-called watch glasses made of acrylic material would come under Heading No. 39.07 of the Customs Tariff Schedule and that Notification No. 240/78 had no application to the present case and the appellants were not entitled to the concessional rate of duty in terms of that notification. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. The Assistant Collector is directed to reassess the goods accordingly and grant consequential relief, if any, to the appellants.

Equivalent 1989 (043) ELT 0734 (Tribunal)