ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. The revenue is aggrieved with the impugned order, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) In No. C.Cus. 13/98 dt. 12.1.1998 by which he has accepted the importer’s contention that the imported item is scrap in the light of the NML’s certifying that the item to be “non alloy steel scrap” for re-melting purpose. He has also noted that the lower authority was not justified in rejecting this evidence. He has also noted that the specifications laid down by Indian Standard Code for classification of processed ferrous scrap meet the specification laid down in the Ferrous Scrap Circular 1990 issued by the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, USA where ISRI Code No. 207 contains the same definition of Bushelling. He has also noted that the goods are small pieces of the size 22 cms./29cms. With 0.8 mms.
Thickness. He has also noted that no prime material is manufactured, marketed or available in the country or in the international market in these dimensions. He has also noted that the shape of the imported goods is that of hour glass and this could not find market as prime material. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also accepted the assessee contention that the item is a scrap and accepted the letter dt. 2.1.1998 produced from the supplier to show that the scrap had arisen out of cut sheet during the manufacturing process of computer monitor and TVs. It is noted the cutting is uniform as it is the centre portion of the sheet and it is of no use. Hence, he set aside the order in original. Revenue contends that the item is not a scrap but “non alloy steel plate”. They also relied on the Note 8(a) of Section XV of the Customs Tariff and pleaded that the item cannot be treated as a scrap. In view of the definition stating that “goods which are not usable as such because of breakage, cutting up, wear or other cases can be called as scrap.” In the subject cases, the plates imported are usable in nature as such and it cannot be considered as scrap. Revenue has assailed NML’s opinion as not proper and as not acceptable.
2. We have perused the records and gone through the impugned order and the grounds of appeal. We notice that the Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the issue thoroughly in the light of the NML’s certificate certifying the item to be non alloy steel scrap for remelting purpose. He has also noted the guidelines for considering the item to be ferrous scrap issued by the ISRI, USA where ISRI Code 207 contains same definition of Bushelling. He has also noted the trade understanding to treat the item as scrap and that such material is not manufactured, marketed or available in the country or in the international market in these dimensions. We have examined the definition appearing in note 8(a) of Section XV of the Customs Tariff Act. We have perused the grounds and find that there is no evidence placed to show that such material as imported is being treated in the international market as prime material and is being used for the purpose other than as scrap. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has also taken into consideration the opinion given by an expert body which cannot be assailed without rebuttal evidence. We do [not] find any merit in this appeal. Hence the Revenue appeal is rejected.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court)