9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (12) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, ld. SDR is present on behalf of the respondent. He pleaded that the product in dispute is Nickel Cadmium Cells and are assessable under Heading 85.04 at the rate of 100% + 35% + 5% CVD. Shri Jha pleaded that the matter is fully covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal in appellant s own case vide Order No. 142-150/86-B2, dated 6-3-1986. He pleaded that in the said order it was stated that Since the cells were storage batteries, their assessment should have been under sub-item (2) of Item 31 of CET which attracted the lower rate of 20% and that the same ratio may be followed. 3. We have heard Shri K.K. Jha, ld. SDR and have gone through the records. The issue involved is whether the Nickel Cadmium Cells imported by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake the imported cells out of the general category Electric accumulators". The technical book `A Dictionary on Electronics by S. Handel, which the appellants showed us during the hearing, itself says that usually the accumulators use a liquid as electrolyte. This description itself leaves room for use of other electrolytes, i.e., in other than liquid form. Since Heading 85.04 is a separate and specific heading for the cells imported, we hold that the lower authorities were correct in classifying them under that heading. Their action is in conformity with the statutory scheme of classification of parts in the customs tariff and we confirm it. 3. Coming to the Exemption Notification No. 172/77-Cus., we find that it is applicable to parts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in six of the Appeals No. 63, 325, 326, 327, 329 and 1098/85-B2, the appeals are otherwise rejected." 4. The Tribunal in its earlier order had observed that since the cells are storage batteries, the assessment should have been under Sub-Item (2) of Item 31 of CET which attracted the lower rate of 20% - the same rate which the appellants had claimed in terms of the exemption notification. The Tribunal further had held that Countervailing duty be re-assessed under Item 31(2) of CET and consequential refund be given to the appellants. We follow the same ratio and order assessment under Heading 85.04 and for CVD 31(2). The Revenue authorities are directed to give consequential relief. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
