ORDER
Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the order-in-appeal dated 27-12-1990 passed by the Collector (Appeals) Customs Excise, Bombay the matter relates to the eligibility of the seamless carbon steel tubes to the benefit of concessional rate of customs duty under Notification 155/86-Cus., dated 1-3-1986. The exemption under the said Notification 155/86-Cus. was available to the components of heat exchangers. It was found that seamless carbon steel tubes were not fabricated. The Asstt. Collector of Customs who adjudicated the matter held that as the tubes were specifically described under Heading No. 73.04 of the Customs Tariff, in terms of Rule 3A of the general Rule 4 they should not be classified elsewhere under heading covering parts. On appeal the Collector of Customs (Appeals) observed that Notification 155/86-Cus. did not lay down any specific condition that the parts of machine which were being extended benefit under Notification should also be specified under Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff. He admitted the appeal of the respondents before us M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd.
2. Shri S.N. Ojha, DR for the Revenue submitted that this matter is already covered by a series of decisions of this Tribunal wherein it had been held that the steel tubes were classifiable under Heading 7304 of the Tariff and not as part of the heat exchanger. He particularly referred to the Tribunal decision in the case of Ess Kay Machinery Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Calcutta reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 779 (Tribunal).
3. Sr. Executive for the respondents prays for adjournment on the ground that the concerned official is on leave. After going through the facts and material on record as we find that the matter is already covered by the Tribunal decision we do not accept the request for adjournment.
4. We find that the respondents had imported seamless carbon steel tubes. Carbon steel seamless tubes imported were in fixed length but there was no other indication that they were parts of the heat exchanger in the form in which the goods had been imported they were not considered by the adjudicating authority as parts of the heat exchanger. As the tubes were specifically classifiable under Heading No. 73.04 of the Customs Tariff, their classification as part of the machines could only be considered after the classification under specific heading was ruled out. the Asstt. Collector of Customs had also referred to the explanatary notes at page 1015 where in it had been mentioned that the product of the Heading No. 73.04 included tubes and pipes suitable for use in heat exchanger.
5. We find that the matter is already covered by the Tribunal decision in the case of Ess Kay Machinery Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 779 (Tribunal) where it had been held that the special quality steel tubes remained classifiable in the general category of pipes and tubes of steel classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading No. 7304.49. Following the above decision we do not agree with the view taken by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals) and as a result the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed. Ordered accordingly.