1998(10)LCX0053

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

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

INDCON POLYMECH LTD.

Versus

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY

Final Order No. 783/98-B2, dated 8-10-1998 in Appeal No. C/453/97-B2

Advocated By : Shri J.S. Agarwal, Advocate, for the Appellants.

Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. - Question involved is regarding classification of Carbonaceous Molecular Sieve imported by the appellants herein. The appellants claimed classification of the same under Tariff Heading 8485.10 with benefit of Notification No. 155/86-Cus., whereas according to the lower authority, namely Collector of Customs, Mumbai the aforesaid goods are classifiable as a chemical under Tariff Heading 3802.10.

2. Learned Advocate, Shri J.S. Agarwal has taken us through the impugned order from where he points out that these are in the form of cylinders fitted into the generator for manufacturing Nitrogen gas and it has a long life inasmuch as it is auto-generated. He has also taken us through the two opinions of Chemical Examiner and Deputy Chief Chemist available at pages 27 and 28 fo the Paper Book. It is clearly stated in the opinions of the said authorities that this system i.e. Carbonaceous Molecular Sieve (CMS) is a continuous process wherein CMS is regenerated and used. In the process CMS does not get consumed. Opinion of the Deputy Cheif Chemist apart from what has been stated by the Chemical Examiner is also that there is no chemical reaction involved in the above process.

3. We have also heard the learned JDR Shri R.S. Sangia. We are fully satisfied that the imported goods, namely CMS is a part of Nitrogen manufacturing machine entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 155/86-Cus., as duly certified by the competent authority referred to in the said notification. Learned adjudicating authority’s comparison with the particles of sand in a frying pan in our view is not correct. It is, clearly stated by him in the impugned order that CMS has been given cylinderical shape which is fitted in the machine. Therefore, his decision that it is not part of the generator is not correct. Hence, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.

_______

Equivalent 1999 (107) ELT 159 (Tribunal)

Equivalent 1999 (030) RLT 0014