1981 (5) TMI 24

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rom the same petitioners and as such these are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The petitioners imported consignments of "Aluminium Alloy Connecting Rod Die Forgings" for motor cycles which were classified under heading 84.06 of CTA, 1975 without any Countervailing duty. Later on, demands for countervailing duty under Item 27(b) of CET were confirmed by the original authority. The petiti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ese two tariffs being two separate enactments. As has been pointed out in the appellate orders, the interpretative rules form part of the CTA 1975 and these govern the principles of classification under CTA '75 whereas such rules have got no binding on classification of an Item under the CET, for which one has to go by the tariff heading. The Government observe that the impugned Item is admittedly .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of CET. 4. As regards the petitioners' contention that it would be incongruous to hold an Item to be a semi-finished product while classifying it under CET whereas for basic customs classification it is held to be a finished part-the Government observe that it is not the case that the impugned Item has been held to be finished part for classification under CTA, 1975; the Item remains semi-finis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X