ORDER
Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Eleind Engineering Pvt. Ltd., the matter relates to the classification of the Alsint Two Bore Insulators’ oval shape imported by the appellants and the applicability to the exemption Notification No. 97/89-Cus., dated 1-3-1989 as amended. The goods were imported by post and were declared as ‘porcelain for laboratory use . The appellants sought classification u/s.h. No. 9025.90 of the Customs Tariff as parts of the pyrometer. They also claimed the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 172/89-Cus. The appellants had explained before the adjudicating authority that these insulators were used for insulating high temperature Electromotive Force (emf) originated through metal resistance and were suitable for use in pyrometer. The goods were classified by the Asstt. Collector, Customs Foreign Post Office, New Delhi u/s.h. No. 8546.20 of the Tariff as electrical insulator of ceramic. On appeal, the Collector, Customs (Appeals) observed that there was nothing on record to show that the porcelain hollow tubes (two bore insulators) were parts of pyrometer. He referred to the Chapter Note 1(b) to Chapter 90 under which ceramics wares for laboratory were excluded from the purview of Chapter 90. As regards the benefit of exemption Notification No. 97/89-Cus., he observed that the goods imported were not the parts required for the manufacture of the goods specified in the Table of that Notification.
2. The matter was posted for hearing on 15-9-1997 when Shri Y.N. Chopra, Consultant appeared for the appellants. He submitted that the goods imported were parts of the pyrometers and were correctly classifiable u/h No. 9025.90 of the Tariff. He contended that even if the classification as determined by the Revenue is accepted as u/h No. 8546.20, they were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 97/89-Cus. He referred to the B/E dated 20-10-1995 where the similar goods had been classified by the Revenue u/s.h. No. 9025.90. He also referred to the details of the assessment as intimated by the Asstt. Collector, Customs under the communication dated 15-4-1993 and submitted that no basis had been indicated in this commurucation and that the matter be remanded to the jurisdictional authorities for intimating the appellants the basis for the demand.
3. In reply, Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR referred to the invoice and the certificate from the Directorate of Industries, Delhi and submitted that the importers were engaged in the manufacture of number of goods including laboratory equipment and that the goods have been mentioned in the invoice as insulators. Accordingly, their classification u/s.h. No. 8546.20 of the Tariff was correct. He also mentions that as no certificate as required in the Notification has been produced, the benefit of Notification No. 97/89-Cus. has also been rightly disallowed by the Appellate Authority.
4. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that in the invoice at page 22 of the paper book, the goods have been described as ‘Alsint Two Bore Insulators Oval Shape 4.6/3.3 x 1.5 x 75 mm long’. The goods were declared on the post parcel as to contain porcelain for laboratory use. At the time of the hearing before the Asstt. Collector (Customs), it was submitted that the insulators imported were for use for insulating high temperature E.M.F. originated through metal resistance and were suitable for use in pyrometers. This contention that the goods were part of pyrometers has been rejected by the A.C. (Customs) and that Collector, Customs (Appeals) and the goods have been classified on merits under specific heading for electrical insulator.
5. Electrical insulators have been specifically described in the Customs Tariff and if the goods are covered by the description of electrical insulators, they are required to be classified therein even when they are parts of pyrometers. On the facts and description as given in the documents, the Collector, Customs (Appeals) had observed that there was nothing to support the appellants’ arguments that the impugned goods were parts of pyrometers. He had also denied the benefit of Notification No. 97/89-Cus. on the ground that there was no evidence suggesting that the goods in question were parts required for the manufacture of the goods specified in the Table of that Notification.
6. Shri Y.N. Chopra, Consultant had referred to the Table under Notification No. 97/89-Cus., dated 1-3-1989 as amended and had referred to Serial No. (1) of the said Table which covers indicators, recorders, controllers or transmitters for measuring or checking temperatures, pressure flow or label of liquids or gases. We find that the instruments referred to in Serial No. (1) of the Table aforesaid relates only for measuring or checking of the liquids or gases. It has not been made out by the appellants that the goods imported were for use in instruments which were for measuring or checking temperature, pressure flow or label or liquids or gases.
7. The ld. Consultant has also referred to the B /E of the year 1995 under which the goods ‘Alsint Two Bore Insulators oval shape’ pyrometers parts were classified u/h No. 9025.90 of the Tariff. In the impugned order-in-appeal, there is an observation that on the facts and information on records, it has not been established that the impugned goods were parts of pyrometers. In the B/E relied upon by the ld. Consultant the goods have been specifically mentioned as ‘pyrometers parts’. The details of the consignment are not before us and it may not be proper for us to deal with this matter which is not before us.
8. As the goods have been described in the invoice and as per the discussion in the order-in-original and in the order-in-appeal, we do not find any material on record to interfere with the findings of facts of the Collector, Customs (Appeals) in these proceedings.
9. After taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the appeal is rejected.