1998(11)LCX0148

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI

Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J) and Shri Lajja Ram, Member (T)

WIPRO LTD.

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE

Final Order Nos. 1189-92/98-C, dated 18-11-1998 in Appeal Nos. C/739/94-C to E/742/94-C

Advocated By : Shri Rajesh Chibber, Advocate, for the Appellant.

Shri Sumit Das, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - The issue for determination in this appeal filed by the assessee against the Order of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore, is the correct classification of different types of seals imported for use in the manufacture of hydraulic cylinders. According to the importers, such seals fall for classification under Heading No. 8412.90 of the Customs Tariff as parts of Hydraulic power engines while the Revenue has upheld classification under Heading No. 3926.90 as other articles of plastics, since the items were made of PTFE, a plastic material.

2. We have heard Shri Rajesh Chibber, Advocate and Shri Sumit Das, JDR.

3. The appellants submit that although there is no dispute that the imported seals are made of plastic material, they would fall for classification under Chapter Heading No. 84 in view of the fact that they are used only in hydraulic cylinders and are identifiable parts thereof, and relied upon the CBEC Circular No. 49/96-Customs, dated 1-3-1996 to support their claim for classification under Heading No. 8412.90. They also submitted that both prior to and subsequent to the period in dispute, the assessee itself was assessing the same goods under Heading No. 8412.90 as seen from the bills of entry. The ld. JDR on the other hand drew our attention to the orders of the authorities below wherein it has been held that the seals are not designed and manufactured for the appellants herein, and therefore, could not be treated as part of hydraulic cylinders for the purpose of classification under Chapter 84 and he submitted that therefore, the seals made of PTFE, are correctly classifiable under Heading No. 3926.90 as other articles of plastics.

4. We have heard submissions made by both the sides. We find on perusal of the record that the Asstt. Collector in the adjudication order has clearly held that there is no doubt that these seals are used in the manufacture of hydraulic cylinders. The lower appellate authority has also held that there is no dispute regarding the use of the seals in the manufacture of hydraulic cylinders and that the seals are for use in the manufacture of cylinders. This being accepted position, the circular dated 1-3-1996 becomes very relevant. As per this Circular, it is noted that the classification of rings and seals of plastic for use in hydraulic cylinders was not uniformly made in the Customs Houses/Commissionerates and that whereas in some Customs Houses they were being classified as parts of hydraulic cylinders under Heading No. 8412.90 of the Customs Tariff, in other Custom Houses the same were classified as articles of plastic under Heading No. 3926.90. The circular states that seals/rings, if suitable for use solely or principally with hydraulic cylinders or other machines of Heading No. 84.12 will fall under Heading No. 8412.90, as parts of hydraulic cylinders, vide Section Note 2(b) to Section XVI. This Circular also deals with seals, which are made of rubber (which is not the subject matter of this issue). We also note that the authorities themselves have noted that earlier the goods were being cleared under Heading No. 8412.90 and that subsequent to the disputed period, they have been cleared under Heading No. 8412.90. In this view of the matter, having regard to the un-disputed position, that the seals are for use in the hydraulic cylinders and applying the circular of the Board, we hold that the goods in dispute fall for classification under Heading No. 8412.90 and set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

_______

Equivalent 1999 (105) ELT 350 (Tribunal)