1998(02)LCX0118

IN THE CEGAT, EASTERN BENCH, CALCUTTA

Shri P.C. Jain, Member (T) and Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)

IMPEX CORPORATION

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA

Order Nos. A-146-150/Cal/98, dated 4-2-1998 in Appeal Nos. C/2105 to 2109/90-B

Advocated By :  None, for the Appellant.

Shri R.K. Roy, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. - Matters called. None for the appellants. Our attention has been drawn to an application dated 2-2-1998 received from the partner of the appellant firm, praying for adjournment. Reason given for adjournment is that the person concerned who is looking after the above legal matter has suddenly left for his native place after hearing the sudden death of his cousin brother thereof.

2. We are unable to accede to the prayer of adjournment on the ground that similar adjournments had been given on account of the appellants when it was pointed out by the partner of the appellant company, Shri Madan Gupta that he was unable to argue the matter because he was sick on 27-11-1997. Prior to this date, an adjournment had also been given at the request of the Consultant for the appellant firm on 7-10-1997. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellant firm is deliberately delaying the matters and is not interested to argue the same and consequently, we have not acceded to the prayer for adjournment. Hence, we have heard the learned JDR, Shri R.K. Roy for the Revenue and we have also gone through the appeals papers filed by the appellants herein.

3. Since a common issue is involved in all these matters, a common order is being passed by us.

4. Question involved in these matters is whether the steel chains described as ‘spare-parts for agricultural machinery, DID brand agricultural tractor chains" - are liable to be assessed under Tariff Heading : 73.15 as made by the Revenue or it is liable to be assessed under Tariff Heading 98.06 read with Tariff Heading 84.32 and read with Notification No. 69/87.

5. The contention of the appellant firm is that the chains imported by them are parts of power tiller which is an agricultural machinery falling under Tariff Heading 84.32. Consequently, it should be assessed under Tariff Heading 98.06 which reads as parts of machinery, equipments, appliances, instruments, and articles of Chapters 84, 85, 86, 89 and 90 read with Notification No. 69/87, inasmuch as Notification No. 69/87 specifically includes the Serial No. 13 of the Table thereof; within the scope of its benefit.

6. Revenue’s stand on the other side is that chains are specifically mentioned under Tariff Heading 73.15. This is also defined as ‘parts of general use’ under Note 2 of Section XV of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which reads as follows :-

“2. Throughout this Schedule the expression, `parts of general use’ means :

(a) Articles of heading Nos. 73.07, 73.12, 73.15, 73.17 or 73.18 and similar articles of other base metal;

(b) .........................................

(c) ..........................................."

Tariff Heading 73.15 is also reproduced below :

Further, Section Note (1)(g) of Section XVI states that this Section does not cover ‘parts of general use’ as defined in Note (2) to Section XV, of base metal........ In other words, the Revenue contends that these Section Notes read together clearly take the goods falling under Heading 73.15 out of the scope of Section XVI under which the Chapter 84 falls. By virtue of these Notes, since chains are parts of general use, they would not be covered by Chapter 84 and therefore, classification under Tariff Heading 84.32 is ruled out. Reliance placed by the appellants for classification under Tariff Heading 98.06 is, therefore, not appropriate, inasmuch as the said Tariff Heading 98.06 reads as follows :-

Learned JDR, therefore, submits that unless an article falls, inter alia, under Chapter 84, it cannot fall under Tariff Heading 98.06.

7. We have considered the pleas advanced as above, by the learned JDR in support of the Revenue’s stand. We have also gone through the grounds of appeals filed by the appellants herein. We are of the view that in view of the categorical definition of ‘parts of general use’ in Section Note (2) of Section XV, the goods are specifically covered under Tariff Heading 73.15 read with Section Note (1)(g) of Section XVI. This cannot at all be covered under Tariff Heading 84.32 as contended by the appellant firm. Reliance placed by the appellants on an earlier order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not of much help to the appellants inasmuch as the said Order-in-Appeal basically relates to the practice of the Customs House. He has not gone into the contends of the Chapter Notes mentioned above. Therefore, reliance placed by the appellants herein on the earlier Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) would not be of any help to him, particularly when the lower authorities have specifically relied on the two Section Notes mentioned above. We do not find any substance in the pleas of the appellants. Consequently. we dismiss the appeals.

_______

Equivalent 1998 (103) ELT 548 (Tribunal)

Equivalent 1998 (025) RLT 0479