1999(01)LCX0233

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

S/Shri Lajja Ram, Member (T) and A.C.C. Unni, Member (J)

RAMA TRADING CO.

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

Final Order No. 12/99-B2, dated 14-1-1999 in Appeal No. C/95/96-B2

Advocated By : Shri Vivek Kohli, Advocate, for the Appellant.

Shri K. Panchateharam, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Lajja Ram, Member (T)]. - In this appeal filed by M/s. Rama Trading Co., the issue for our consideration is whether the imported scrap tungsten defective filaments were classifiable as waste and scrap under sub-heading No. 8101.91 of the Customs Tariff as contended by the importers or they were classifiable under sub-heading No. 8101.99 of the Customs Tariff as decided by the Revenue.

2. We have heard Shri Vivek Kohli, Advocate for the appellants and Shri K. Panchateharam, JDR for the Revenue. We have gone through the facts on record and have considered the submissions made by both the sides.

3. The importers, a Trading Company had imported the consignment under Air way bill dated 19-5-1995 and filed a bill of entry on 25-5-1995 for its clearance. The goods were examined and it was found that it consisted of tungsten filaments of various sizes for use in electric lamps. In the communication dated 20-6-1996 addressed to the Assistant Collector, Customs, the importers had explained that they were dealers in lamp components and scrap and that they had imported scrap tungsten defective filaments for sale to the small manufacturers of miniature bulbs and that the goods imported were usable after further reprocessing and cutting.

4. The appellants had claimed assessment under sub-heading No. 8101.91 of the Customs Tariff which covers waste and scrap. The waste and scrap has been defined in Section Note 6 under Section XV of the Customs Tariff as under:

“Waste and Scrap : Metal waste and scrap from the manufacture or mechanical working of metals, and metal goods definitely not usable as such because of breakage, cutting up wear tear or any other reason.”

5. Ld. Departmental Representative had submitted that under the scheme, Heading No. 8 of the Customs Tariff, sub-heading No. 8101.91 was towards the first stage of production of the metal tungsten. Sub-heading No. 8101.92 covers further processed goods in the form of bars and rods. Still further processed goods were covered by sub-heading No. 8101.93. He submitted that the said goods were in the nature of filaments even when they were not of standard sizes. They could not be covered by sub-heading No. 8101.91 as it largely covered unwrought tungsten.

6. It has been admitted by the appellants that the goods imported were to be sold to the manufacturers of miniature bulbs. It has been further explained that the miniature bulbs manufacturers do not require standard size or regular filaments and that the filaments after segregation were usable by the manufacturers of miniature bulbs. Ld. Counsel has further explained that if any quantity was left after segregation and if such quantity was not usable in the manufacture of miniature bulb, then such residue could not be put to any use and had to be discarded.

7. We have already referred to the definition of waste and scrap as contained in the tariff and we find that as the defective filaments were usable as such although after segregation, we consider that they could not be covered by the definition of waste and scrap.

8. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) taking note of the fact that there was a dispute about classification, had set aside the order of confiscation and levy of penalty while confirming that part of the order of the Additional Commissioner of Customs which related to demands of customs duty.

9. Taking note of the nature of the goods imported and the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground for interfering with the views taken by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). We do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is rejected. Ordered accordingly.

_______

Equivalent 1999 (111) ELT 901 (Tribunal)