1998(01)LCX0180

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

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

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS

Versus

O.K. AGENCIES

Final Order No. C/101/98-B2, dated 2-1-1998 in Appeal Nos. C/1792-1793/88-B2

CASE CITED

U.O.I. v. Rajs Continental Exports Pvt. Ltd. 1985(06)LCX0005 Eq 1987 (027) ELT 0256 (Mad.) Followed [Para 2, 3, 4]

Advocated By : Shri S. Kannan, JDR, for the Appellant.

Shri T.P.S. Kang, Advocate, for the Respondent.

[Order per : G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)]. - The short point to be considered in this appeal is whether the staple pins are classifiable under Heading 83.01/15(2) as per the department or under 73.31 as claimed by the assessee.

2.Originally the item in question was assessed to duty under Heading 83.01/15(2) with C.V. duty under 68 CET. Subsequently, importers claimed reassessment of the item under Heading 73.31 CTA. In support of their claim, the appellants cited a High Court decisions passed in respect of similar goods imported by another importer. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector. But the Collector (Appeals) on an appeal filed by the party following the ratio of the decision of the High Court of Tamil Nadu ordered for re-classification of the item under 73.31.

3.It was the contention of the department that the High Court of Tamil Nadu was not correct in classifying the item under 73.31 and not being accepted with the verdict of the High Court, the department has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court which is pending.

4. Heard both sides. We find that the High Court of Tamil Nadu has considered the matter in detail and classified the item under 73.31. Filing of appeal before the Supreme Court is not a ground to have a different view and since the issue has already been considered and covered by the decision of the High Court of Tamil Nadu, following the raito, we accept that the item is classifiable under 73.31. Since we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, we uphold the impugned order and in the result, these two appeals are dismissed.

Equivalent 1998 (99) ELT 0526 (Tribunal)

Equivalent 1998 (025) RLT 0358