1997(07)LCX0293

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

S/Shri G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J) and J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)

TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS

Final Order No. C/1660/97-B2, dated 31-7-1997 in Appeal No. C/2149/88-B2

CASE CITED

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Collector — 1991(07)LCX0031 Eq 1992 (058) ELT 0101 (Tribunal) — Followed  [Para 3]

Advocated By : S/Shri M.A. Krishnamurthy with J.B. Ravi, Advocates, for the Appellant.

Shri D.S. Negi, SDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)]. - This is an appeal filed by Tamil Nadu Electricity Board against impugned order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras.

2. The refund claim filed by the appellants for re-classification of cupro tubes as parts of condenser of turbines, has been rejected. On appeal filed by the party, the Collector has observed that the goods have been invoiced as tubes and priced “per kg.” which indicates they are treated by the suppliers only as raw-materials and not as finished components. It was also observed therein that the appellants’ representatives have agreed that the goods have been imported only as tubes and no fabrication was done on them.

3. Arguing for the appellants, Shri Krishnamurthy, ld. Advocate submitted that the appellants have imported only parts of the condenser and those parts are imported only as tubes. It may be considered that the issue involved in this case is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the very party’s case as reported in 1992 (058) ELT 101, but however, he submits with reference to the purchase of that, the party has imported only parts of the condenser, but no such purchase order has been placed on our record.

4. Ld. DR, Shri Negi, reiterated views taken by the authorities below, in classifying the item under 74.07/08 of the Customs Tariff Act.

5. We find that the very issue had come up for consideration before the Tribunal in their own case and the Tribunal had decided that the items, in question, are classifiable under 74.07/08 and not under 84.04/05 as part of the condenser. In the facts and circumstances, since the issue has already been considered, following the earlier decision, we uphold the impugned order and in the result, appeal is dismissed.

Equivalent 1998 (102) ELT 724 (Tribunal)

Equivalent 1997 (022) RLT 0660 (CEGAT)