ORDER
H.R. Syiem, Member (T)
1. This appeal by the department had been filed somewhat late. The bench, however, condoned it and proceeded it to hear the merits of the dispute and called upon the learned counsels to advance arguments.
2. The learned counsel for the department Mrs. Zutshi reiterated all that has been said in their appeal (undated). She said that cycle beadwire rings are not part of a cycle, but an input for the manufacture of cycle tyre. Such tyres are exempted from payment of Central Excise duty under Notification No. 24/65, but components for tyre are not classifiable under Tariff Item No. 16, they are classifiable under Tariff Item 68 and attract duty under Notification No. 89/79. She said the Collector (Appeal) of Central Excise, Calcutta in his order No. 358/Cal./83 dated 23-3-1983 accepted the factory’s contention that what goes into the manufacture of a cycle tyre is also a part of a cycle. This is not correct. A part of a tyre remains a part of a tyre, it is not a part of a bicycle. A tyre and a cycle are different goods and are traded as different commodities. In commercial parlance, they are understood to represent different commodities, with different name, character or use.
3. A part of a cycle tyre is also a part of a bicycle; in our opinion that is the more reasonable view. Therefore, we support the order of the Collector (Appeal).
4. This appeal is rejected.