ORDER
T.P. Nambiar, Member (J)
1. This appeal is filed by the department against the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) held that Thyristors are semi-conductors. In holding so, he allowed the benefit of Notification No. 91/89, dated 1-3-1989 as amended by Notification No. 174/85(sic), dated 29-5-1989. It is against this finding of the Collector (Appeals), the present appeal is filed by the Revenue. In the grounds of appeal, it is mentioned as follows :-
“The contention of the Collector (Appeals) that the imported goods are eligible under customs Notification No. 91/89 is not correct. Type of the semi-conductor devices covered under the customs Notification No. 91/89 are specifically mentioned therein, since thyristor is not specifically covered under the said notification, the benefit of Notification No. 91/89 is not available.
In case, the refund is sanctioned to the importer, the importer is not going to pass on the benefit of the refund amount to the buyer of final product manufactured by him. The duty at higher rate paid by the importer on the goods has already been passed on by the importer as part of the price of the finished goods to the buyer. As such, the refund of the duty amount of Rs. 1,20,962.00 will result undue enrichment of the importer. Various courts have held that as the party is not passing on the benefit of the refund to the consumers who have paid the duty, such refund deserves rejection.
In view of the above facts, the Order-in-Original is correct in law and needs to be restored.”
2. Heard the ld. JDR Shri Rama Rao. He reiterated the reasonings mentioned in the grounds of appeal.
3. The ld. Advocate Shri K. Parameswaran appearing for the respondents contended before us that the imported goods are semi-conductors. He also pointed out that in the Chambers Dictionary, the same is defined as semi-conductors. He therefore pointed out that in the absence of any other evidence in this regard, it cannot be said that the Thyristors are not semi-conductors.
4. We have considered the submissions. In order to find out the veracity of the above said argument, we have also looked into Section XVI of the HSN under Heading 8541 (III) wherein it is stated as follows :-
“(III) Similar semi-conductor devices. The “similar” devices referred to here are semi-conductor devices whose operation depends on variations in resistivity on the application of an electric field.
They include:
(1) Thyristors, consisting of four conductivity regions in semi-conducting materials (three or more p n junctions) through which a direct current passes in a pre-determined direction when a control pulse initiates conductivity. They are used as controlled rectifiers, as switches or as amplifiers and function as two interlocking, complementary transistors with a common collector/base junction.”
5. A perusal of the above said definition in HSN also supports the view taken by the Collector (Appeals). It is very clearly stated that Thyristors come under the category of semi-conductor devices.
6. Therefore, there are no grounds made out to interfere with the order of the ld. Collector (Appeals). Accordingly, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.