ORDER
I.J. Rao, Member (T)
1. The question that arises for decision in this appeal is whether Resistors (Resistance Coil) imported by the respondents are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 172-Cus/77. The Respondents plead that the goods are part of Potentiometer and cannot be considered as Resistors. The Revenue who filed the appeal argued that the imported goods are nothing but resistors and according to serial No. 8 of the Notification, they would be entitled to the concession only after power rating is upto 20 watt.
2. Shri J. Gopi Nath, Ld. SDR submitted that there is no dispute about basic classification of the imported goods under Heading 85.18/27(1)CTA. He argued that resistors are excluded from the concessional rate. Shri Gopi Nath stated that the Appellate Collector held that the goods were parts of Potentiometer and wrongly allowed the appeal inasmuch as even if the goods were parts of Potentiometer they continued to be resistors. Shri Gopi Nath referred to Note 2 of Section XVI of CTA according to which once the goods were resistors they had to be classified accordingly. Shri Gopi Nath also placed reliance on the explanatory note to CCCN according to which Potentiometer is a resistor.
3. The Ld. Representative of the Appellants submitted that the wattage of the potentiometer under which the goods go in one watt. He emphatically stated that the imported goods were not resistors inasmuch as they did not have any leads but were wound coils. Further no value was written on the goods, whereas on every resistor the resistance value is invariably given. The Ld. representative further submitted that the goods cannot directly go into the circuit but had to be provided with leads before they became resistors. He submitted that the imported goods are only parts of resistors and not resistors.
4. The Ld. SDR in his rejoinder submitted that the lead is only a connecting wire and the main criterion for a resistor is resistance. According to him the Appellate Collector did not give a finding whether the imported goods were resistors.
5. We have considered the submissions of both sides. We had occasion to inspect a sample of goods which was available on the file. The imported goods did not have any leads. Admittedly the leads have to be fixed by the importers. Shri Gopi Nath’s argument in favour of application of Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules (CTA) and for the application of the Section Note 2(a) of Chapter XVI cannot be accepted because we are interpreting a Notification and not the Tariff. On facts, as mentioned earlier, we agree with the submissions of the respondents that the imported goods are not resistors but part of resistors which ultimately go into a potentiometer. It is only resistors that are excluded from the concessional rates under Notification No. 172/77. In this view we dismiss the appeal.