TMI Blog1988 (2) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to review the Order-in-Appeal dated 17-5-1980, passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay. The respondents were called upon by the aforesaid notice to show cause why the said Order-in-Appeal should not be set aside and appropriate orders should not be passed. 2. The facts of the case in the case of the Andhra Sugars is that they imported a consignment of Korobon Heat Exchanger . In the case of Shriram Vinyl Chemical Industries, the goods imported were Karbate Parts of Heat Exchangers . These goods being articles made of graphite were assessed to customs duty under Heading No. 68.01/16(1) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Schedule). The two respondents, however, claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and parts thereof also. Had this not been the case, there was no warrant for specifically excluding them by chapter note since in that case there would not have been any question of classifying them as machinery parts. 2. The question of applying ejusdem generis rule in this case does not appear to arise since the exclusion note 1(a) does not merely mention other articles but it actually reads other articles falling within Chapter 68. It is not as if only the other articles of the same kind as grind stones and mill stones will be excluded. On the contrary, the said exclusion note excludes other articles falling within Chapter 68 and the impugned goods are articles of graphite which fall under Heading 68.01/16 of CTA, 1975. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Albright, Morarji Pandit Ltd. The allegations in the notice against that respondent were also the same as in the case of the present two respondents. Those proceedings which had also been transferred to the Tribunal and came up for hearing earlier and were disposed of vide order reported in 1988 (33) E.L.T. 488 (Tribunal). The goods involved in that case were a consignment of Graphilor Blocks , also parts of heat exchangers. They were initially classified as articles of graphite and assessed to duty under Heading No. 68.01/16(1) of the Schedule. The claim of the respondents was, as in the present matters, that the goods, being parts of heat exchangers, should be classified under Heading No. 84.17(1). The Tribunal in its order noticed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench. The Bench found that the blocks being made of artificial graphite and phenolic resin did not fit into any of the descriptions in Heading 68.01/16 inasmuch as they were not articles of mineral substances since they had been made out of artificially produced substances. Thus, the goods were held to fall under Heading 84.17(1) and accordingly the show cause notice was discharged in so far as the respondent Albright, Morarji Pandit was concerned. 5. Referring to the above-mentioned order, Shri Sachar submitted that in the present matters there was nothing on record to show that the goods were made of artificial graphite. It was his contention, therefore, that that decision would not apply to the facts of the present matters. If the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vinyl Chemical Industries were made of artificial graphite and that note 1(a) to Chapter 84 did not come in the way of classification of the subject goods under that chapter. 7. Shri Rao submitted on behalf of Andhra Sugars Ltd. that the goods in that case also were made of artificial graphite. In fact, he contended, the goods were not mere graphite blocks but a complete heat exchanger. In this connection, he drew our attention to the finding in the impugned Order-in-Appeal to the effect that the goods imported by Andhra Sugars were a complete heat exchanger and not spare parts. He, therefore, contended that, as in the case of M/s. National Rayon Corporation, the fourth respondent to the Government s show cause notice (the show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e a complete heat exchanger and not spares. However, at page 5, the Appellate Collector seems to doubt whether, having regard to the value of the goods, they could indeed be a complete heat exchanger and proceeds to say that the Assistant Collector was perhaps correct in finding that they were only spares. 9. In the above background, we find it difficult to pass specific orders classifying the goods under Headings of the Customs Tariff Schedule. Further factual investigation seems to be called for. Having regard to the principles emerging from our previous decisions, we think that the classification could be looked into afresh by the Collector (Appeals). These principles are:- (a) If the goods are made of artificial graphite plus synth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
