ORDER
Harish Chander, Member (J)
1. M/s. Continental Exporters, Bangalore have filed an appeal being aggrieved from a common order No. C3/747 to 750/83 and C3/1066 to 1073/83, C3/1076 and 1078/83 disposing of 14 appeals. In column No. 3 of the appeal memo the date of communication of the order has been mentioned as 26th May, 1984. The said appeal was received in the Registry on 25th August, 1984. Collector of Customs (Appeals) had disposed of 14 appeals by a common order. Thereafter, 20 more supplementary appeals have been filed. Shri Krishna Srinivasan, the learned advocate who has appeared on behalf of the appellant, stated that 21 bills of entry were involved and as such he has filed 21 appeals. By a separate order dated 5th November, 1990 dictated in the open court, delay in the filing of the supplementary appeals was condoned. Since the issue involved in all the above captioned appeals is common, the same are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant imported staple pins. These were originally assessed under Heading 83.01/15(2), whereas the appellant claimed reassessment under Heading 73.31 on the plea that staple pins were made of steel and Chapter 73 was confined to iron and steel and articles thereof and the original classification under Heading 83.01/15(2) relates to miscellaneous articles of base metal. The appellant had taken the plea that Heading 73.31 was more specific that should predominate rather than Heading 83.01/15(2). The Assistant Collector was of the view that staple pins were of thinner variety normally used as stationery. It may have use in packing of garment but this does not preclude its predominant use as stationery. Heading 83.01/15(2) covers, inter alia, letter clips, staples, indexing tags and similar stationery goods. The note to Chapter 83 speaks of “a reference to parts of articles”. He was of the view that only Heading 83.01/15(2) was more specific in view of the wordings “similar stationery goods” and the exclusion given in the note to Chapter 83 would apply only to staples of other than stationery type and he had taken the view that the goods were assessable under Heading 83.01/15(2) and had rejectd the refund claims.
3. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the appeals were filed before the Collector of Customs (Appeals). The Collector of Customs (Appeals) had confirmed the findings of the Assistant Collector and had held that the subject staples were correctly classifiable under Heading 83.01/15(2) CTA and had rejected the appeals.
4. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the appellant has come in appeal before the Tribunal.
5. Shri Krishna Srinivasan, the learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant. He has reiterated the facts. He has referred to Chapter 73 and Heading 73.31. He has stated that the matter is covered by an earlier judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Raj’s Continental Exports Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1987 (27) ELT 256 (Mad.), where the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court had held that staple pins made of iron and steel 10-1M – usable for packing of ready-made garments and not as stationery goods and were classifiable under Heading 73.31 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and not under Heading 83.01/15(2). Shri Krishna Srinivasan, the learned advocate, further stated that an appeal was filed against the Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court before the Supreme Court and the same has been dismissed being hit by limitation. However, he fairly stated that there are SLPs against some other writ petition decisions of the Madras High Court which are pending before the Supreme Court and the stay applications have been rejected but appeals are pending before the Supreme Court. He further argued that since there is a decision in favour of the appellant, the same should be followed. In support of his argument, he has referred to a judgment in the case of Shree Rajendera Mills Ltd. v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer reported in 1978 (2) ELT J-551. He has pleaded for the acceptance of the appeals.
6. Shri M.K. Sohal, the learned JDR who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, relied on the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. Shri Sohal pleaded that his arguments are the same which were adopted by Shri P. Narsimhan, Advocate who had appeared on behalf of the revenue before the Hon’ble Madras High Court. He has referred to BTN page 1140 item 83.05. He has pleaded for the rejection of the appeals.
7. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The matter is fully covered by a judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Raj’s Continental Exports Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1987 (27) ELT 256. Paras No. 6 and 9 from the said judgment of the Madras High Court are reproduced below :-
“6. The counsel appearing for the department contends that the words occurring in Heading 83.01/15(2) “similar stationery goods” after the words “letter clips, staples, indexing tags” indicate that staples imported will fall under Heading 83.01/15(2) as stationery goods and that apart, applying Rule 3(c) Chapter 83, occurring later than Chapter 73, the staples occurring in Chapter 83 must prevail over the staples occurring in Chapter 73. We are of the view that the argument of the learned counsel has no merit. It must be noted that the heading description for 73 is very specific and we are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that the staples in question will fall only under Heading 73.31 of the Customs Tariff Act.”
9. We are of the view on going through the entire records and hearing the arguments of the respective counsel that there are no merits in the writ appeal and the learned Judge has rightly held that the Assistant Collector of Customs is not right in assessing the staples in question under Heading 83.01/15(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Under the circumstances, there are no merits in the writ appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.”
Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Shree Rajendera Mills Ltd. v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer reported in 1978 (2) ELT J-551 had held that “the order of the Tribunal will be as effective as the order of a High Court so far as their binding character on lower authorities is concerned. It is, of course, open to the lower authority to take his own view on the facts but so far as the law propounded by the Tribunal is concerned, it is binding and it should be applied by the lower authority to the facts before him.” In the matter before us, there is a Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court. Without expressing our views, we are respectfully following the same. In view of the above observations, we hold that the goods imported are to be classified under Heading 73.31 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
8. In the result, the appeals are allowed. Revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order.