9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Benefit of Notification No. 63/86 for goods other than electrical resistance wires of Nickel Chrome and other Nickel alloys. Analysis: The issue in these appeals revolved around the interpretation of Notification No. 63/86 concerning goods other than electrical resistance wires of Nickel Chrome and other Nickel alloys. The lower appellate authority considered the pleas made during the personal hearing and concluded that the goods in question did not qualify as electrical resistance wires, thereby allowing the benefit of the notification. The department's JDR argued that the wire contained Nickel and Chrome, making it a Nickel Chrome wire used in spark plugs for ignition, thus falling under the category of resistance wire excluded from the notification. The Consultant for the respondents contended that the wire was commonly recognized as a resistance wire in trade, citing ISI specifications requiring a specific percentage of Chrome in resistance wires. The Consultant referred to ISI specifications, particularly IS : 3725-1966, which outlined the requirements for resistance wires used in light electrical appliances. The specifications mentioned the composition of various alloys employed for manufacturing resistance wires, emphasizing the need for a specific percentage of Nickel and Chrome. The Consultant argued that based on these specifications, the wire in question should not be classified as a resistance wire due to its low Chrome content, contrary to the requirements set by ISI. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties and emphasized the importance of industry acceptance and usage in determining a wire's classification as a resistance wire. Referring to the ISI specifications provided, the Tribunal noted the Chrome content criteria for resistance wires and highlighted the lack of conformity of the imported wire with these standards. Additionally, the Tribunal pointed out the previous decision by the Collectors in Conference categorizing spark plug wires, including Nickel alloy wires, under a different classification than electrical resistance wires, further supporting the conclusion that the imported wire did not qualify as a resistance wire. In light of the evidence and arguments presented, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, ruling against the revenue's plea. The decision was based on the lack of industry recognition of the wire as a resistance wire, the discrepancy in Chrome content compared to ISI standards, and the precedent set by the Collectors in Conference regarding the classification of similar wires.
|
