ORDER
P.C. Jain, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal originally filed as a revision application to the Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue and now transferred to the Tribunal as an appeal in terms of Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Questions involved in this appeal are:-
(1) classification of goods described as “forgings for motor-cycles-semi-finished connecting rods forgings for motor cycles” and
(2) whether c.v. duty is leviable on the goods under Tariff Item 27(b) of CET.
3. Brief facts leading to the above questions are as follows:-
The aforesaid goods were assessed by the Customs authorities at the assessment stage under Tariff Heading 84.06 of CTA 1975 read with Tariff Item 27(b) of CET for the purpose of basic Customs duty and c.v. duty of Customs respectively. The appellants, however, filed a refund claim for claiming assessment of the goods under heading 76.08/16 of CTA alongwith the contention that no c.v. duty is leviable on the said goods under Tariff Item 27(b) of CET. Assistant Collector of Customs (Refunds) by his order dated 21.4.1979 rejected the refund claim of the appellants on the ground that the goods are specific parts of motor-cycles and therefore, have been correctly assessed under Tariff Heading 84.06 of the CTA and c.v. duty has also been correctly charged since the imported goods are forgings of aluminium. The Appellate Collector of Customs by his order dated 31-8-1979 upheld the order of the original authority. Now the matter is in appeal before this forum against the impugned order of the Appellate Collector of Customs.
On the question of correct classification of the. goods whether it would be under Tariff Heading 84.06 or under 76.08/16, learned consultant for the appellants drew the attention of the Bench to another order of the Tribunal No. 537/86-B2 dated 1-7-1986 in appeal No. CD(SB)(T)A.No. 583/79-B2 relating to the same appellants in which it has been held that the goods are assessable under Tariff Heading 76.08/16 of CTA. As regards the c.v. duty, learned consultant pointed out that scope of entry 27(b) of CET, reproduced below for proper appreciation:-
“manufactures, the following namely, plates, sheets, circles, strips, shapes and sections, in any form or size not otherwise specified.”
extends only to primary articles of aluminium such as plates, sheets, circles, etc. enumerated in the earlier Tariff of the entry. It does not extend to secondary articles of aluminium. This proposition, according to the learned consultant, is brought out clearly in Central Board of Excise £ Customs clarificatory letter No. 345/3/79-TRU dated 25-4-1979 wherein it has been stated that the scope of the expression ‘shapes and sections’ in the Tariff Item 27(b) will not cover articles of aluminium like jars, rings, spoons etc. A copy of this letter is available at page 555 of Cencus Central Excise Tariff 1984-85. Relying on the analogy of this classification, learned consultant submits that the forgings under consideration would not be liable to c.v. duty.
4. Learned SDR for the Revenue, on the other hand, while conceding the classification under Tariff Heading 76.08/16 as already held in Tribunal’s order mentioned supra has stated that this question has now been proposed to be referred to a Larger Bench in view of several conflicting judgements of different Benches of the Tribunal. On the question of c.v. duty, learned SDR has submitted that forgings of aluminium being shapes and sections in any form or size are directly covered by the plain reading of Tariff Item 27(b) of CET. Reliance placed by the appellants’ learned consultant on the clarificatory letter of Central Board of Excise and Customs is misplaced, according to the learned SDR.
5. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced on both sides. On the question of basic Customs duty there being a direct order of the Tribunal as mentioned by the learned consultant for the appellants relating to the appellants themselves and to which order I was a party, we hold that the goods have been rightly made classifiable under 76.08/16 of CTA; any consequential refund due to the appellants on this account should be granted.
6. As regards the classification for the purpose of c.v. duty, we do not agree with the learned consultant for the appellants. The scope of the expression ‘shapes and sections in any form or size’ in the Tariff Item 27(b) of CET is wide enough to cover forgings of aluminium as well. The distinction sought to be drawn between primary articles and secondary articles on the basis of Central Board of Excise & Customs’ letter dated 25-4-1979 is not quite proper. That clarification is mainly in the context of articles of aluminium like rings, bars, spoons etc. A perusal of the first para of the said clarificatory letter, on the other hand, makes it fairly clear that the purpose of including the aforesaid expression was to extend the scope of Tariff Entry beyond the extruded shapes and sections which alone were liable to duty under Tariff Item 27 prior to 1977 Budget. Accordingly, the contention of the appellants on the question of c.v. duty is rejected.
7. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed in the above terms.