9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (9) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal in terms of the provisions of Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962 to be disposed of as an appeal. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant had imported Molybdenum Glass Electrodes vide Bill of Entry No. 2928, dated 26-4-80. The same were assessed to duty under Heading 85.12 of the Customs Tariff Act. The appellants had claimed the reassessment under Heading 85.11 or 85.18/27(3). The Assistant Collector had rejected the appellant s claim but had held that the correct classification of Molybdenum Glass Electrodes has to be under Heading 81.01/04(1) CTA 75, which attracts the same rate of duty as 85.12 of CTA 75; and as such the appellant was not entitled to any refund. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Tariff Act 1975 which pertains to Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff. Shri Sarang states that Molybdenum Glass Electrodes are parts of a furnace and not an individual article and are electrical goods. These are specifically designed for glass melting furnaces and a furnace cannot function without electrode and it is a component part. He has also referred to Section Note 1(f) of Sec. XV to show that articles falling within Section XVI are excluded from this Sec. and accordingly the goods are to be classified under Heading 85.11(1). Sh. Sarang has pleaded for the acceptance of the appeal and has again argued that Molybdenum Glass Electrode should be assessed under Heading 85.11(1) of CTA 1975. 4. Shri J. Gopinath, the learned SDR, who has a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tors covered by Heading 85.18/27(3) in the absence of his Technical Manager, and preferred classification under 85.11(1) for the given reasons." Shri Gopinath further submits that a simple perusal of para 4 of the earlier order clearly shows that Shri Sarang has not been able to put forth any new argument and as such has not been able to distinguish the same from the earlier judgment and there are no fresh facts and has pleaded that the Bench should follow its earlier judgment and there is no necessity for referring the same to a larger Bench. He has pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal. 5. Shri Sarang in reply has again reiterated the earlier points and has pleaded for the acceptance of the appeal. 6. We have heard both the sides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal goods and are specially designed for glass mE.L.T.ing furnaces also does not help him. We are of the view that Molybdenum Glass Electrode is an article of molybdenum and as such lower authorities had correctly assessed the same under Heading 81.01/04 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Accordingly we confirm the orders passed by the lower authorities. There is no merit in the appeal. We also do not feel that there is necessity of referring the same to a larger Bench. The appeal is rejected. (Harish Chander) Member (J) Separate order recorded below. (S. Venkatesan) President (I.J. Rao) (Member T) 7. [Order per : S. Venkatesan, President].- I would like to add a few abservations to those of my learned brother. 8. The previous case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
