9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (6) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad imported three consignments of rocker lever castings -two of them in January 1981 and the third in July 1981 and they were assessed to duty under sub-heading No. 84.10(3) of the CTA @ 100% + 20% + countervailing duty @Rs. 100/- per M.T. under Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The consignment of completes was imported in November 1980 and was similarly assessed to duty under sub-heading 84.10(3). They filed claims for refund of duty on the ground that the goods in all the cases were correctly classifiable under sub-heading No. 73.33/40 CTA as other articles of iron and steel @ 60% + 15% and were entitled to exemption from duty under Notification 254/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976. The Asstt. Collector of Customs rejected the refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ude cast or forged articles but which require no further processing and could not include semi-finished articles. 3. The appellants contention before us is that in the absence of any dispute that the goods imported are castings in semi-finished condition, the goods are ipso facto classifiable under sub-heading No. 73.33/40 and entitled to exemption under Notification 254/76-Cas., dated 2-8-1996 which classifies iron or steel castings and forgings as falling under sub-heading 73.33/40". Their argument is that when this is so, the substantive right accruing to the appellants under the Customs Act cannot be taken away by allegedly resorting to the application of an Interpretative Rule, overriding the Act. The appellants have also enclosed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5-69/89-B2, dated 19-2-1988. We observe that this is the order which has now been reported in the Excise Law Times as Collector of Customs v. Motor Industries,Co. Ltd. -1990 (46) E.L.T. 163 relating to the import of adjusting pins, camplates and control lever forgings. 7. The case was argued by both the Departmental Representatives S/Shri M.S. Arora and S.K. Sharma. A reference was first made to the same decision of-the Tribunal to which,the appellants have invited attention in their letter. This relates to the import of adjusting pins, camplates and control lever forgings in which, while interpreting Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules, the Tribunal held that indication of specified part number in the drawings constituted clinching ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itled to exemption under Notification 254/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976, overlooks the basic fact that they have a specified part number indicated in the drawing as well as in the invoice and, in view of the two decisions of the Tribunal in the Motor Industries case (supra) and the Bharat Heavy Electricals case (supra), they have the essential character of the finished goods in view of Interpretative Rule 2(a), having attained the approximate shape or outline of the finished goods. Their classification under sub-heading 73.33/40 as other articles of iron or steel under a residuary entry is, therefore, ruled out. The argument that a substantive right which has accrued under the Customs Act cannot be taken away by resorting to the application of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or finished article. It shall also be taken to include a reference to that article complete or finished (or falling to be classified as complete or finished by virtue of this rule), presented unassembled or disassembled." 10. It will thus be seen that the authority to invoke Rule 2(a) in the present case flows from the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act which specifies the rates of duty applicable to imported goods by virtue of Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962. Thus, the General Rules for Interpretation of the First Schedule are part of the Schedule itself and there is no basis for the contention that by applying the Rules, the authorities have taken away the substantive right which has accrued under the Customs Act Such a view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the orders of Collector (Appeals). Thus, the certificate is of no avail to the appellants. 13. In view of the foregoing, it is not necessary for us to go into the contention that Collector (Appeals) has limited the scope of sub-heading No. 73.33/40 by saying that it applies only to articles which are fully finished. Even without going into this aspect, we observe that the appellants do not have any case on merits for classification under sub-heading 77.33/40 in view of the decisions of the Tribunal cited by the learned Departmental Representatives. 14. The last contention of the appellants is that even according to Interpretative Rule 3(a), sub-heading No. 73.33/40 provides more specific description read with Notification 254/76-Cus., d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
