9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tariff Heading 73.06/07(2) for basic Customs duty and Tariff Item 26AA under CET as against the original assessment under Tariff Heading 87.09/12(1) (Parts of Motor Vehicles) and Tariff Heading 84.06 (for connecting rods) by invoking the concept of essential character under Interpretative Rules of the C.T.A. 1975 and Tariff Item 68 CET for countervailing duty. 3. The lower appellate authority has, however, accepted the plea of the respondents. His findings are as follows:- A perusal of the Asstt. Collector s order does not show as to why he had confirmed the classification of the imported goods under Heading 73.06/07 (1) of the CTA, 1975. He has simply mentioned that these forgings were manufactured to the specification given in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals have already been considered by the Tribunal in the respondents own cases reported in 1988 (33) E.L.T. 367 (Tri) [Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay]. The Tribunal in paras 6-9 reproduced below examined the issues in respect of these very goods and has come to certain findings that Tariff Headings 87.09/12(1) and 84.06 CTA 1975 would be correct for Customs duty and Tariff Item 26AA CETA would appropriate for countervailing duty :- 6. We find that the two representative import invoices described the goods as under :- (i) SEMI-FINISHED COMPONENTS FOR BAJAJ SCOOTERS : Connecting Rod forgings as per your part drawing No. 40.0022.03 (ii) SEMI-FINISHED COMPONENTS FOR BAJAJ 3 WHEELERS : Cross Forging as pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as held by the lower authorities. We confirm the Classification arrived at by the lower authorities so far as the basic Customs duty is concerned. 7. Coming to the second argument of the appellants, we find that contrary to what the appellants had pleaded, there were good and cogent reasons for the successor authorities to make a departure from the view taken by the earlier Appellate Collector in his order dated 5-4-1980. It is not that the Appellate Collector s order on classification had been accepted by the Department; the Department had sent up similar classification orders for revision to the Central Government. This particular order dated 5-4-1980 could not be taken up for revision because the revision was found to be time-ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported in 1994 (69) E.L.T. 674 = 1993 (49) ECR 323 (Tri.). He has pleaded that in the light of the said judgment the Tribunal may reconsider its earlier decision in the respondents own case (supra) relied upon by the learned SDR. 7. We have considered the pleas of both sides. We agree with the learned SDR that the Tribunal has already considered the classification of the goods involved herein in the respondents own case. We do not see any reason to differ with the same since a direct decision on the same issues in respect of the same goods in the appellants as well as respondents own case. Shivaji Castings judgment being of a general nature, not involving these very goods, would not be a correct guide in these cases. It goes without s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
