9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng and are being disposed of through this common order. 2. The appellants claimed benefit of concessional rate of duty under Sl. No. 7(2) under Notification No. 44/83 dated 1-3-1983 in respect of Zinc dust imported by them. This claim was rejected by Assistant Collector on the ground that Zinc powders mentioned in Sl. No. 7 covers Zinc Dust also and therefore instead of 40% duty as claimed for "others" under Sl. No. 7 (ii) they are required to pay 60% duty. This claim was upheld by the Collector (Appeals). 3. Arguing for the Appellants the ld. Consultant submits that in regard to classification there is no dispute and the goods are classifiable under heading 79.03. These are classifiable however under 79.03 not as Zinc powder me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kes and "others". If there is dust it is classifiable under 79.03 only as a product most akin to powder but it would not follow that for the purpose of notification also zinc dust should be treated as only zinc powder. Reading the notification as such indicates that what is contemplated is "zinc powders and flakes" under Sl. No. 7(1) and "others" which could otherwise be classified under Heading 79.03. In other words, if zinc dust attracts classification under 79.03 only as a product most akin to powders it cannot be categorised alongwith zinc powder for the purpose of notification. It was strongly pleaded before us by the Ld. Consultant that both in technical as well as in common parlance there is a distinction between zinc powder and dust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fine and spherical, that of zinc powder is coarse and irregular." Therefore we are of the view that the matter would need fresh look with reference to both technical literature on the subject as well as trade understanding. 5. However, we are informed that out of the 24 claims referred to by Asst. Collector as annexed to his order, 16 claims from Sl. No. 8 to 23 are time barred. Ld. Consultant fairly concedes that he does not press the appeals in regard to these claims which were admittedly filed beyond statutory period of limitation. We reject the appeals in regard to claims at Sl. No. 8 to 23 annexed to the order of Assistant Collector as time-barred and uphold that part of the order of the Assistant Collector insofar as it relates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
