1999(04)LCX0190

IN THE CEGAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI

S/Shri Gowri Shankar, Member (T) and G.N. Srinivasan, Member (J)

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI

Versus

BHUWALK STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD.

Order No. 954/99-WZB/C-II, dated 19-4-1999 in Appeal No. C/392/95-Bom

Advocated By : Shri K.L. Ramteke, JDR, for the Appellant.

None, for the Respondents.

[Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The question for consideration in this appeal by the department is whether the goods described as billet cuttings are entitled to the benefit of concessional assessment under Notification No. 51/94.

2. We have heard the departmental representative and perused the papers. The respondent is absent and unrepresented despite issue of notice.

3. Notification No. 51/94 extended inter alia concessional assessment to billets containing by weight less than 0.96% of Carbon. The goods imported by the respondent were classifiable under Heading No. 7207.19 of the Tariff under which billets are classifiable. Collector (Appeals) noted the classification and also observed that they were rerollable and contained by weight less than 0.6% Carbon. Therefore he extended the benefit of the notification.

4. The contention in the appeal is that it is common knowledge that billets and billets cuttings are different and distinct. It is not possible for us to perceive the difference between the two. The departmental representative was also unable to make out any distinction. Billet is defined in the McGraw Hill Dictionary of Science and Technology as `a semi-finished, short, thin bar of iron or steel in the form of a cylinder or rectangular prism produced from ingots’ limited to 1.5" in width and thickness to the cross-sectional area upto 3.6". The Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System of Nomenclature at Chapter Heading 7207 explain that of looms, billets, rounds, slabs and sheet bars, all classifiable under Heading 72.07 are semi-finished products intended for further rerolling or forging, obtained by hot rolling or forging ingots juddled bars or by pilings.

5. In the absence of any definition either of billets or the goods imported by the respondent, it is not possible to say that they are different from billets. It appears that they were obtained by cutting a billet. The resultant products may themselves continue to be remain billets unless it can be shown that the goods in question were not billets. The order extending the benefit of the notification therefore cannot be held to be incorrect.

6. Appeal dismissed.

_______

Equivalent 1999 (113) ELT 183 (Tribunal)