1988 (7) TMI 191 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods as thin walled bearings under Tariff Item 34A of the Central Excise Tariff.
2. Interpretation of ISI Specifications and relevance in determining the classification of goods.
3. Dispute over countervailing duty levied on bimetal bearings.

Analysis:
1. The appeals revolved around the classification of imported bimetal bearings as thin walled bearings under Tariff Item 34A of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant contended that the goods did not meet the specifications of thin walled bearings as per ISI Specification No. IS-4774-1968. The revenue argued that in trade parlance, the goods were considered thin walled bearings. The Assistant Collector upheld the classification as thin walled bearings, which was affirmed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals).

2. The appellant emphasized the importance of ISI Specifications in determining the classification of goods. Referring to various judgments, including the Delhi High Court's ruling in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., the appellant argued that the views of Indian Standard Institute should prevail in determining the classification. However, the respondent argued that the ISI Specifications were relevant only for the quality of goods, not for changing the name of the goods.

3. The dispute also centered on the countervailing duty levied on the imported bimetal bearings. The appellant's consultant argued that bimetal bearings should not be considered as thin walled bearings, while the senior departmental representative contended that the goods fell under the category of thin walled bearings. The respondent highlighted the dimensions and specifications outlined in ISI Specification 4774-1968 to support their classification.

4. After considering the arguments and reviewing relevant judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the imported bimetal bearings should be classified as thin walled bearings under Tariff Item 34A. The Tribunal emphasized that the tariff advice was not binding and upheld the classification based on the understanding in the trade. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the levy of countervailing duty on the imported goods.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the interpretation of relevant statutes and precedents.