1997(06)LCX0128

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

S/Shri S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS

Versus

HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD.

Final Order No. C/1197/97-B2, dated 2-6-1997 in Appeal No. C/1422/91-B2

Advocated By : Ms. R. Pant, SDR, for the Appellant.

None, for the Respondents.

[Order per : Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)]. - This Revenue appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 19-11-1990 of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras.

2. The issue relates to classification of gaskets. The goods were classified under CTH 7326.90. The respondents claimed classification under 8484.10. This was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the part number mentioned in the invoice does not agree with the catalogue/literature produced by the claimants. The Collector (Appeals) set aside this order and allowed the benefit of assessment under 8484.10.

3. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents, when the matter was called.

4. The learned DR arguing for the Revenue submits that these should be assessed as articles of iron and steel under 7326.90 as these do not answer to the description given in HSN Notes.

5. We have heard the learned DR and perused the records of the case.

6. Collector (Appeals) has recorded at the appeal stage that the appellants had produced drawings for which the part number as well as the material specification TMS 24361 is shown and the material specification TMS for rubber coated steel gasket and Engineering change notice for old part No. 6880973 to 23046658 (showing that both the numbers are same). On examining the literature, the Collector (Appeals) arrived at the finding that the goods are classifiable under 8484. 8484.10 reads as “Gaskets and similar joints of metal sheeting combined with other material or of two or more layers of metal”. Invoice indicates under part description “Gasket”. Collector (Appeals) also referred to the material specification for rubber coated steel Gasket. Once the goods are specified as Gaskets, we do not see how we can deny them their classification under legitimate Heading 8484.10 and consign them to the orphanage of general item like other articles of iron and steel. In view of this, we do not see any infirmity in the order of the Collector (Appeals). We therefore, reject the Revenue appeal and uphold the order.

Equivalent 1997 (94) ELT 682 (Tribunal)