1998(08)LCX0056

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

S/Shri P.C. Jain, Member (T) and S.S. Kang, Member (J)

PERFECT ENGG. ENTERPRISES

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

Final Order No. 609/98-B2, dated 5-8-1998 in Appeal No. C/203/96-B2

Advocated By : Shri K. Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant.

Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. - The appellant herein have imported electroplated diamond grinding Disc. The question involved is regarding their classification, whether under Chapter 82 or under Chapter 68.

2. In ruling out the classification under Chapter 82, the following are the findings of the lower authority :-

As apparent from Note 1(d) above, Chapter 82 only covers articles with abrasive materials on a support of base metal, which retain their identity and function after the application of the abrasive.

It is apparent that the discs imported in the instant case are excluded from Chapter 82 since the grooves in the said discs are not of the kind which have any identity and function after application of the abrasive. The grooves referred to in the aforesaid Chapter note are clearly not the grooves of the Electroplated Diamond Grinding Discs where the grooves are merely for impregnation of the diamonds and other precious stones working as the abrasive substance. The discs in question are apparently of abrasive material and are clearly covered by Chapter Heading 68.04 as evident from the HSN explanatory notes on page 899, wherein it has been stated that “grinding wheels, heads, discs, points, etc., as used on machine tools, electro-mechanical or pneumatic hand tools, for the trimming, polishing, sharpening, trueing or sometimes for the cutting of metals, stone, glass, plastics, ceramics, rubber, leather, mother of pearl, ivory etc. are covered by this heading”. The HSN notes clarify that Chapter 82 would cover only those tools with cutting teeths, flutes, grooves, etc., which retain their identity and function even after application of the abrasive material, i.e. to say tools, unlike those of Heading 68.04, which could be put to use even if the abrasive had not been applied. It is apparent that the discs imported would not be of any use as a tool if the abrasive had not been applied on these discs. In view of the aforesaid position there is clearly no merit in the various submissions made by the appellants for classification of the goods under Chapter 82.05. I am therefore unable to accept the submissions made in the appeal and reject the same.

Hence this appeal.

3. Ld. Advocate Shri K. Kumar for the appellant submits that the goods are covered by the Chapter Note 1(c) and not Chapter Note 1(d). The lower authority has discussed only the application of Chapter Note 1(d) as was urged before the said authority by the appellants. We have considered that note also as urged by the ld. Advocate for the appellant. In our view Chapter Note (1) of Chapter 82 takes the grinding wheels with frame work under Chapter 82 and not otherwise. Grinding wheels without frame work is covered under Chapter Heading 68.04. It is admitted to the appellants that the goods imported are grinding wheels without frame work. We need not therefore go to other clauses when there is specific entry for `grinding wheels with frame work’ covered under Chapter Note (1). In view of the above we are of the opinion none of the clauses (a), (b), (c) or (d) of Chapter Note (1) it would be applicable in the present case because the dispute is regarding `grinding wheels without frame work, keeping in view the Chapter Note (1) and the tariff description of Tariff Heading 68.04, grinding wheels without frame work, which are the goods herein, admittedly would be covered by Tariff Heading 68.04.

4. In view of the foregoing discussion we reject the appeal and confirm the classification under Tariff Heading 68.04.

_______

Equivalent 1998 (103) ELT 248 (Tribunal)