1993(04)LCX0080

BEFORE THE CEGAT, SPECIAL BENCH `B2’, NEW DELHI

S/Shri P.C. Jain, Member (T) and S.L. Peeran, Member (J)

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS

Versus

SRI RAM FIBRE

Final Order No. C/44/93-B2, dated 6-4-1993 in Appeal No. C/1096/85-B2

Advocated By : Shri B.K. Singh, SDR, for the Appellants.

Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, Advocate, for the Respondents.

[Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. - Brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein imported certain valves which were assessed to duty under Tariff Heading 84.61(1) CTA, 1975 @ 60% plus 35% and C.V. duty @ 10% under Tariff Item 68 CET. The respondents thereafter filed refund claim before the Asstt. Collector claiming assessment under Tariff Heading 84.61(2) CTA, 1975 on the ground that the critical parts of the valves imported by them are lined with the corrosion resistant material although the outer body is made of cast steel. Original authority rejected the claim of the respondents on the ground that in terms of description under Tariff Heading 84.61(2) the valves should have been wholly made of corrosion resistant materials. That not being so, refund claim is not maintainable.

2. The respondents thereafter filed appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras who accepted the aforesaid contention of the appellant and allowed the appeal and consequently the refund claim. The lower appellate authority arrived at the aforesaid decision on the plain reading of Tariff Heading 84.61(2). For the sake of appreciating the arguments of both sides, we reproduce the said tariff heading :

“Valves made of corrosion resisting materials such as stainless steel, nickel, monel, incoloy, hastelloy and other valves lined with rubber or other corrosion resisting materials .....”

3. Ld. SDR Shri B.K. Singh arguing for the Revenue points out that according to the tariff description valves naturally are to be made wholly of carbon resisting material. Even the second portion of the tariff description according to him would cover the entire valve and not merely the functional and critical portion of the valve.

4. On the other hand, Ld. Advocate Shri A.R. Madhav Rao for the respondents reiterates the findings of the lower appellate authority. He submits that the later portion of the tariff description extracted above makes it very clear that lining has to be only of the critical portion otherwise the meaning of merely lining would not be of any consequence.

5. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We agree with the findings of the lower appellate authority that the later portion of the tariff description namely, other valves lined with rubber or other corrosion resisting material would cover lining only of the critical or functional portion of the valve because it is only that portion of the valve which comes into contact with the corrosive gas or fluid. Had the intention been that the lining should be of the entire valve there was no need in our view to bring in the later portion of the tariff description as mentioned above. That would have been covered by the first portion itself, and the second portion would have become redundant. Accordingly we do not find any merit in the appeal of the revenue. The same is rejected.

Equivalent 1994 (69) ELT 697 (Tribunal)