9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order per : S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President]. - The respondents have filed a Cross Objection and also sent a letter dated 24-2-1998 to the effect that the matter may be decided on merits in their absence. 2. Hence we have gone through the records and heard ld. DR. Ld. DR stated that respondents are the manufacturers of hard metals and articles of hard metals in their factory. They are manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25-7-1989 set aside the orders of the Assistant Collector and confirmed the classification under sub-heading No. 8101.00. 4. It was department's contention that these goods were classified under Tariff Item 51A of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. And irrespective of external appearance, they are used as tools to give a polish to the internal diameter of ferrous and non-ferrous tubes and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l under this category; hence they would not fall under Heading 82.09. 7. In fact, the very same HSN notes clarify that manufacturers not covered under Note 1 to Section XV or included in Chapter 82 or 83 would fall under Heading 81.01. Burnishing balls (which are not covered by Note 1 to Section XV) would therefore be classifiable under this category as these are predominantly made of tungst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itself had classified the item under sub-heading 8101.00 and the classification was changed without any cogent reasons. The Collector of Appeals also pointed out that Burnishing Ball is neither a tool nor a tip as per the Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology. These are merely meant for smoothening and are in spherical shape. They are used as articles for giving polishing touches to an inn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Collector (Appeals) for changing approved classification list is wrong and unsubstantiated. Reference to HSN notes without going into the technical aspects is therefore not reliable. Cross-Objection filed by Respondents also fails to throw light on the technical details. Collector (Appeals)'s reasoning as well as that of Assistant Collector is wrong. 11. Department Appeal is rejected as u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
