ORDER
V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Choksi Heraeus Pvt. Ltd. is whether the Silver Palladium wire manufactured by them is classifiable under sub-heading 7101.60 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by them or under 7101.90 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order.
2. We heard Shri Ravinder Choksi, Chairman of the appellant-Company and Shri Kumar Santosh, learned Senior Departmental Representative. The main contention of the appellants is that impugned wire manufactured by them contains 70% silver and 30% Palladium and as the silver pre-dominates by weight, the product is to be classified as silver wire under sub-heading 7101.60. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative has relied upon Note 4 read with Note 3(b) to Chapter 71, according to which an alloy containing 2% or more by weight of palladium is to be treated as an alloy a platinum. He has also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Telephone Industries v. Collector of Customs, Madras, [1988 (36) E.L.T. 169].
3. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Notes 3 and 4 to Chapter 71 reads as under:-
“3(b) The expression ‘Platinum’ means platinum, iridium, osmium, palladium, rhodium and ruthenium.”
4. For the Purpose of this Chapter, any Alloy (including a sintered mixture and an inter-metallic compound) containing precious metal is to be treated as an alloy of precious metal if any one precious metal constitutes as much as 2% by weight, of the alloy. Alloys of the precious metal are to be classified according to the following Rules :
(a) An alloy containing 2% or more by weight, of Platinum is to be treated as alloy of Platinum;
(b) An alloy containing 2% or more by weight, of Gold, but no Platinum, or less than 2% by weight, of Platinum, is to be treated as an alloy of Gold;
(c) Other Alloys containing 2% or more, by weight, of Silver are to be treated as alloys of Silver.”
4. It is an admitted fact that the impugned product contains 70% silver and 30% palladium by weight. As per Note 3(b) to Chapter 71, the Expression ‘Platinum’ means Platinum, iridium, osmium, palladium, rhodium and ruthenium. Thus in view of Note 3(b), the product in question containing 30% palladium, will be treated as an alloy of Platinum as the expression palladium also means platinum. Further Note 4 provides the manner for classification of alloys of precious metals. According to Clause (a) to Note 4, an alloy containing 2% or more, by weight, of platinum is to be treated as an alloy of platinum. As admittedly the product contains more than 2% by weight of palladium [Platinum by virtue of Note 3(b)] the product has to be considered as a product of Platinum only which is classifiable under sub-heading 7101.90. There is no force in the submissions of the learned Chairman of the Appellant-Company that Clause (c) of Note 4 will apply. Clause (c) of Note 4 will apply to only “other alloys” which are not covered by Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Note 4 to Chapter 71. This was the view held by the Tribunal in the case of Indian Telephone Industries, (supra), wherein the assessee had imported silver palladium bimetal sheets which comprises 70% silver and 30% palladium. The Tribunal has held that as per Clause
(a) of Note 4, “the subject alloy is to be treated only as an alloy of Platinum since
it contains more than two per cent by weight of Platinum (here it contains palladium which for the purpose of this Note is to be treated as Platinum)” The Tribunal has also observed that “the words “other alloys” evidently refer to alloys
other than those covered by Clauses (a), and (b).” Accordingly, we find no merit
in the appeal which is rejected.