1990(08)LCX0094

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI

Shri I.J. Rao, Member (T), Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J) and Ms. S.V. Maruthi, Member (J)

CEAT TYRES OF INDIA LTD.

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY

Order Nos. 1309-22/90-A, dated 20-8-1990 in Appeal Nos. CD/1888/1983-A, CD/SB/1885/1983-A, CD/SB/1886/1983-A, C/491-94/1990-A, CD/SB/2123/1988-A, CD/SB/1826/1983-A, CD/SB/1827/1983-A, C1887/1983-A, C/1729-31/1990-A

CASE CITED

CEAT Tyres of India Ltd. v. Collector — 1990(03)LCX0041 Eq 1990 (049) ELT 0387 (Tribunal) — Followed.. [Paras 3, 6]

Advocated By :   Shri P.K. Ram, Advocate, for the Appellant.

Smt. S. Baliga, SDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : I.J. Rao, Member (T)]. - At the outset, Shri Ram, the ld. Advocate submitted that in some of these 14 appeals, the appellants had made requests for change of title from the existing “M/s. Ceat Tyres of India Ltd.” to “Ceat Ltd.”. He has filed miscellaneous applications today seeking this change in all the appeals. This change was allowed even in earlier appeals filed by the appellants. The ld. Advocate also filed a copy of the fresh certificate of incorporation consequent on change of name, in support of the prayer for change of title. Smt. Baliga did not oppose the change of title. The Bench ordered that the name of the appellants in these appeals be changed to “Ceat Ltd.”, as prayed for.

2. We, then took up the 14 appeals and heard both sides. These 14 appeals (with the exception of Appeal No. 2123/88A) have common issues. The issues relate to the inclusion of landing charges in the CIF value of the imported goods for purposes of assessment of customs duty. In appeal No. 2123/88-A, there is, in addition to the question on landing charges, a ground that insoluble sulphur is classifiable not under Heading 38.01/90-(1) (as ordered by Customs) but under 35.01/32-(10) CTA.

3. Both sides agree that the question of inclusion of landing charges for purposes of valuation was decided in respect of the same appellants by an earlier order of the Tribunal [Order Nos. 238 to 321/90-A, dt. 28-3-90 = 1990(03)LCX0041 Eq 1990 (049) ELT 0387 (T)].

4. Following the ratio of the said judgment which squarely applies to these matters, we reject the appeals except Appeal No. 2123/88-A. We reject this appeal insofar as it relates to landing charges.

5. With regard to the other question involved in appeal No. 2123/88-A, Shri Ram, the ld. Advocate brought to our notice that the Tribunal in an earlier judgment, in respect of the same appellants, held that insoluble sulphur is classifiable under Heading 35.01/32-(10) of CTA. Smt. Baliga, the ld. SDR, after verifying the judgment, accepts the position following the earlier order, we allow the Appeal No. 2123/88-A insofar as it relates to the question of classification of insoluble sulphur.

6. The 14 appeals are disposed of accordingly.

(Appeal No. 2774/89-A was also listed for today. However, Shri Ram brought to our notice that by its order dt. 28-3-90, the Tribunal already disposed of this appeal).

_______

Equivalent 2002 (145) ELT 108 (Tri. - Del.)