ORDER
J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. These two appeals arise out of the same order of the Collector (Appeals) and are disposed off by this common order.
2. The assessee manufacture Dry Cell Battery Jackets of tin and bottoms and tops of tin. The classification claimed by them was under Heading 8001.00. The Assistant Collector classified the products under Heading 8506.00. Challenging this classification before the Collector (Appeals), the assessee claimed that the top and bottom portion would merit classification under Heading 83.09 and the body portion of the jacket would be classifiable under Heading 8312. The Collector after considering the scope of the various Tariff entries, classified the goods under Heading 8312 in the appeal filed by the assessee, the plea made is that the bottoms and tops would merit classification under heading 8309. In the appeal from revenue, it is urged that the correct classification would be under 8506.00.
3. We have heard Shri R. Swaminathan, Consultant for the assessee and Shri M. Haja Mohideen, JDR, for the revenue.
4. The claim for assessment of the goods under Heading 8506 is based on the argument that Battery Cell Jacket and parts thereof are used solely as parts of Dry Battery Cell and would, therefore, correctly be classifiable in the same item as the parent entry for Dry Battery Cell. The Collector in his order has referred to Section XVI Note 1(J) which excludes from coverage thereof Articles of Chapter 82 or Chapter 83. Shri M. Haja Mohideen relied upon the Section Note 2 to Section XVI in support of the revenue’s argument.
5. Shri R. Swaminathan cited the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Pate/ Plastics v. Union of India -1992 (59) E.L.T. 247 (Guj.). The issue for decision in this case was the classification of Plastic Battery tops. In examining the structure of the Tariff the Hon’ble High Court held that such tops could not be termed to be parts of machinery. The ratio of this judgment would squarely apply to the facts of the cases before us. Shri M. Haja Mohideen relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union Carbide India Limited – 1995 (76) E.L.T. 489 (S.C.) We have carefully perused this judgment and we find that the ratio thereof has no relevance to the case before us. Following the ratio of the judgment of the High Court, we hold that the Battery Jackets, the tops and the bottoms do not merit classification under Heading 8506.
6. Heading 8309 cover stopper, caps lids as well as seals. The tops and bottoms do not answer the description of stoppers, caps and lids, Shri R. Swaminathan very fairly conceded that they could not be termed as seals. On this account we find that the classification of the contested goods as made by the Collector under Heading 8312 as appropriate.
7. In the result we find no merit in either appeal. Both the appeals are dismissed.