Kasturi And Sons Ltd. vs Cc on 27 May, 1996

0
24
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Tamil Nadu
Kasturi And Sons Ltd. vs Cc on 27 May, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996 (65) ECR 60 Tri Chennai
Bench: S T K., S Peeran, K D Shiben

ORDER

Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)

1. These appeals are directed against Order-in-Original No. C. 3/1048/1050 dt. 6.4.1985 of Collector of Customs (Appeals).

1.2. Appellants had imported what they claimed to be highly polished Zinc Plates under Bill of Entry No. D. 336 dt. 8.8.1979 and D. 162 dt. 4.1.1980. The goods were assessed under Tariff Item 84.34 of CTA and 26B(II) of Central Excise Tariff. The Appellants applied for refund of duty on the ground that since goods were highly polished zinc plates of special composition and were meant to be used only in powerless etching machine for making blocks, they could not be classified under Tariff Item 26B(ii) for the purpose of countervailing duty. This contention was rejected by the authorities. Hence these appeals.

2. Arguing for the Appellants the Ld. Counsel submitted that these plates, even though, made of Zinc have special composition, are highly polished and are used only for the printing purposes for the preparation of printing blocks. These facts have not been disputed by the Collector (Appeals). Considering that these are specifically intended for the purpose of preparing printing plates classification of these products under Item 26B of Central Excise Tariff as ordinary Zinc Plate would not be correct. It is only ordinary zinc; manufactures as such would attract duty under Tariff Item 26B(ii). These on the other hand are meant specifically for preparing printing blocks and if at all they attract Central Excise duty, proper Tariff Item would only be CET 68 and not 26B(ii).

3. Arguing for the Revenue, the Ld. DR submitted that Collector (Appeals) has rightly held that Item 26B(ii) specifically included manufacture of Zinc and covers Plate. The subject item does not make aay distinction between the ordinary zinc plate and highly polished zinc plates. Since the items basically are zinc plates even though highly polished they were rightly classifiable under Item 26B(ii) for the purpose of countervailing duty.

4. We have heard both sides. We find that Central Excise Tariff Item 26B specifically covers manufacture of Zinc and including thereunder plates, sheets, etc. There is nothing in this tariff item such as would exclude highly polished Zinc Plates. In this view of the matter these zinc plates as such, even though highly polished, would get covered under Tariff Item 26B as “manufacture” of Zinc and would specifically answer to description of “plates” mentioned therein.

5. There is no force in the plea of the appellants that even assuming while denying the goods are liable to duty of Central Excise they should be classified under Item 68. Since the goods squarely get covered under proper Tariff Item 26B they cannot be taken out from their legitimate parentage under Item 26B and consigned to the orphanage of a residuary item like 68. In view of this both appeals are rejected and impugned order upheld.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here