1997(05)LCX0103

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

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

SOUTHERN PETROCHEM. INDUS. CORPN. LTD.

Versus

COLLR. OF CUS., MADRAS

Final Order No. C/1532/97-B2, dated 29-5-1997 in Appeal No. C/1512 of 1991 B2

CASE CITED

Collector v. Warner Hindustan Ltd. — 1986 (26) E.L.T 367 (Tribunal) — Distinguished [Para 4]

Advocated By : None, for the Appellant.

Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR, for the Respondents.

[Order per : Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)]. - This appeal is directed against Order dated 20-12-1990 of Collector of Customs (Appeals).

2. The appellants imported a consignment known as incolloy and sought clearance under Bill of Entry dated 1-12-1989. The goods were classified under CTH 72.19.13 as stainless steel. The appellants contended that these were known in trade as nickel alloy and therefore, merited classification under item 75.06.20. This claim was rejected by the Asstt. Collector (Appeals) upheld the order.

3. The appellants desire a decision on merits. We have heard ld. D.R.

4. From the Order of the Asstt. Collector, it is seen that Analysis Certificate produced by the appellants indicates that the materials consists of - Nickel 30.25%, Chromium 20.40%, ferrous 46.95%. In their Memo of Appeal, the appellants have cited Tribunal’s Order in case of Collector of Customs v. Warner Hindustan Ltd. - 1986 (26) ELT 367, which they contended, held such goods are nickel alloy. This decision, we note, was rended in the context of Old Customs Tariff, prior to introduction of Customs Tariff Act, 1985. Under the New Tariff Act, Chapter Notes define nickel alloys as metallic substances in which nickel predominates by weight over each of the elements. Other conditions relate to content by weight of cobalt, content by weight of at least one of the other elements and total content by weight of elements other than nickel plus cobalt. The analysis certificate clearly indicates that it is the ferrous which predominates and not nickel. Chapter notes have overriding effect and determine the tone and scope of headings. In view of the change introduced by Customs Tariff Act, 1985, therefore, defining nickel alloy itself, we are of the view that earlier order of the Tribunal is not applicable to the facts of the case.

5. In view of this, we do not find any merit in this plea and we have to hold that impugned goods are not nickel alloy but would merit classification only as stainless steel as held by the authorities below.

6. In regard to alternate plea of benefit under Notification 150/81, we note that appellants have not produced any evidence to substantiate their claim for benefit of this notification. This claim, therefore, has to be rejected as unsubstantiated.

7. In the result, we reject the appeal and uphold the impugned order.

Equivalent 1997 (95) ELT 134 (Tribunal)

Equivalent 1997 (021) RLT 0821 (CEGAT)