1997(06)LCX0053
IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
S/Shri S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)
GOLDEN LAMINATES LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI
Final Order No. C/1415/97-B2, dated 25-6-1997 in Appeal No. C/147/96-B2
Cases Quoted
Bakelite Hylam Ltd. v. Collector — 1986(04)LCX0028 Eq 1986 (025) ELT 0240 (Tribunal) — Followed [Para 2]
Viral Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector — 1996(07)LCX0180 Eq 1996 (086) ELT 0658 (Tribunal) — Followed [Para 2]
Advocated By : Shri Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR, for the Respondent.
[Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - This appeal arises from the order-in-appeal dated 28th February, 1996 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi. The appellants imported the goods described in the B/E as “Glossy finish stainless steel moulds” 4 x 8 feet in size and classified under Heading 8480.79 as moulds for plastic. The department did not accept their contention and have classified the same under Tariff sub-heading 7210.90 which reads as under :
| Heading No. | Sub-heading No. | Description of article |
| 72.10 |
| Flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel, of a width of 600 mm or more, clad, plated or coated, plated or coated with in : |
|
| 7210.11 | Of a thickness of 0.5 mm or more |
|
| 7210.12 | Of a thickness of less than 0.5 mm |
|
| 7210.20 | Plated or coated with lead, including terne-plate |
| Electrolytically plated or coated with zinc : |
|
|
|
| 7210.31 | Of steel of a thickness of less than 3 mm and having a minimum yield point of 275 MPa or of a thickness of 3 mm or more and having a minimum yield point of 355 MPa. |
|
| 7210.39 | Other |
|
|
| Otherwise plated or coated with zinc : |
|
| 7210.41 | Corrugated |
|
| 7210.49 | Other |
|
| 7210.50 | Plated or coated with chromium oxides or with chromium and chromium oxides |
|
| 7210.60 | Plated or coated with aluminium |
|
| 7210.70 | Painted, varnished or plastic coated |
|
| 7210.90 | Other. |
2. The issue pertains to the classification of the product. It is the contention of the ld. Advocate that in identical matter, the Tribunal has gone into in detail of classification both of old tariff and new tariff. It is their contention that in the case of Bakelite Hylam Ltd., Bombay and another v. C.C., Bombay as reported in 1986 (025) ELT 240, the goods had been described as moulds. The Tribunal had accepted the contention that they were falling under Heading 84.60 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and not under Heading 73.15. He relies on another judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Viral Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C., Bombay as reported in 1996 (086) ELT 658 wherein the Tribunal had held that the goods were classifiable under Heading 84.59(2) and not under 73.15(2) of the erstwhile Customs Tariff. The case of Viral Laminates Pvt. Ltd. was confirmed by the Supreme Court as can be seen from the Court-room Highlights published in 1991(10)LCX0056 Eq 1992 (057) ELT A139. He also submits that in terms of this judgment, the appeal is required to be allowed. The ld. DR reiterates the department’s stand taken in the order.
3. We have considered the case-record and have also perused the judgments cited by the ld. Counsel for the appellants. As the goods are identical, the claim of the appellants is required to be accepted for classification of the goods `moulds’ under sub-heading 8480.79. In that view of the matter and respectfully following the ratio of the judgment of the Tribunal, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
Equivalent 1997 (94) ELT 108 (Tribunal)