1993(02)LCX0010

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

S/Shri G.P. Agarwal, Member (J) and Lajja Ram, Member (T)

FERRO ALLOYS CORPORATION

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

Order Nos. C/61-63/93-D, dated 18-2-1993 in A. Nos. C/2705-2707/89-D

CASE CITED

Voltas Ltd. v. Collector — 1991 (56) ELT 569      [Para 3]

Advocated By : Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Advocate, for the Appellants.

Shri J.N. Nain, JDR, for the Respondents.

[Order per : G.P. Agarwal, Member (J)]. - In all these three appeals, the common issue involved is as to whether the imported goods namely Nozzles are assessable under Heading 69.03.90 as claimed by the appellants or to be classified under Heading 98.06.00 as held by the authorities below.

2. Shortly put, the facts of the case are that the appellants imported nozzles and the same were assessed under Heading 98.06 as part of machines. These importations took place before 21-9-1988. Subsequently, the appellants filed their respective three refund claims but the Assistant Collector rejected the same holding that in terms of Note 1 to Chapter 98, all parts of machine of Chapters 84, 85 etc. are assessable under Heading 9806.00 unless specifically excluded from this heading in terms of Note 7 to the Chapter, and since the subject imported goods were not so excluded the same were correctly assessable under Heading 9806.

3. Appearing on behalf of the appellants, Shri Lakshmi Kumaran, learned Advocate reiterated the submissions made before the Collector (Appeals) and submitted that the nozzles are to be replaced too often and, therefore, it could not be treated as part of machine. In reply, Shri J.N. Nair, learned JDR while supporting the impugned Order cited the case of Voltas Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1991 (46) ELT 569.

4. We have considered submissions. In the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) has held that the argument that the nozzles are required to be replaced too often and therefore, it should not be treated as part of machine cannot be accepted. We do not find any infirmity in his finding nor any authorities were shown to take a contrary view. In the result, we uphold the Order-in-Appeal and reject all the present three appeals.

Equivalent 1993 (68) ELT 435 (Tribunal)