ORDER
S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The Commissioner of Customs held that Tungsten Coils Reject imported by the appellant is scrap and classifiable under heading 8101.91 of the Customs Tariff and requires a specific licence. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and allowed the release of some goods on payment of redemption fine. The personal penalty was also imposed on the appellants.
2. The contention of the appellant is that the Tungsten Coils Rejects are used in the manufacture of the electric bulbs. They produced bills regarding the sale of Tungsten Coils Reject to the manufacturer of electric bulbs. The contention of the appellant is that as they are used as such by the manufacturer of bulbs, therefore, the Tungsten Coils Reject cannot be classifiable under heading 8101.91 of the Customs Tariff as Waste and Scrap.
3. The appellants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rama Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, reported in 1999 (111) E.L.T. 901 (Tribunal) where the importer claimed the classification of Tungsten Filament Scrap under heading 8101.91 of the Customs Tariff as “Waste and Scrap” and the Revenue rejected the claim of the importer. On appeal filed by the importer, the Tribunal also rejected the claim of the importer regarding classification of Tungsten Coil Rejects as the “Waste and Scrap.” The contention of the appellant is that as in the case of Rama Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Supra), the Tungsten defective filaments of various sizes were for use in the manufacture of Electric lamps cannot be considered as ” Waste and Scrap”, therefore, in the present import also the Customs authorities cannot classify the same goods as “Waste and Scrap”.
4. The contention of the Revenue is that the goods in question are Reject or waste of the manufacturing process and has been defined as “Reject” be-cause they do not meet the specification for which they are manufactured and reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority.
5. We find that Customs authority in the case of M/s. Rama Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Supra) rejected the claim of the importer to classify’ the defective Tungsten Filaments as Waste and Scrap under heading 8101.91 of the Customs Tariff and this view was upheld by the Tribunal. Therefore, in the present case, the Customs authority is not justified to classifying the same goods as “Waste and Scrap”. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.