ORDER
Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Manu Steel Processors the matter relates to the classification of threaded bungs. The appellants had classified the same under sub-heading 8309.90 of the Tariff while the Revenue had classified the same under sub-heading 7311.00 of the Tariff which covered containers for compressed or liquefied gas of iron or steel.
2. Shri Naveen Mullick, Advocate submitted that the goods were threaded bungs which were specifically described under sub-heading 8309.00. As the goods were specifically described in sub-heading 8309.00, their classification under sub-heading 7311.00 was not justified as the same covered containers, and the parts were not covered by that Heading.
3. Shri Satnam Singh, SDR replied that for the bungs the Heading No. 73.11 was specific and the goods had no other use than for the LPG gas cylinders.
4. After carefully considering the arguments advanced on both the sides, we find that the threaded bungs are specifically included in sub-heading No. 8309.00. For the threaded bungs the Entry under Heading 83.09 was specific while under sub-heading 7311.00 was general. There is no reference to the end use in Tariff Entry No. 8309. In the case of Dunlop India Ltd. & Madras Rubber Factory v. U.O.I., 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1566 (S.C.), the Supreme Court had observed that when there is no reference to the use or adaptation of the article, the basis of end use for classification under a Tariff entry is absolutely irrelevant (refer para 42). In the case of Golden Press v. Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, 1987 (27) E.L.T. 273(A.P), the Andhra Pradesh High Court had after referring the above mentioned Supreme Court’s decision had ruled that when there is no mention of end use in any specific Tariff Entry then the end use was irrelevant.
5. As the threaded bungs were specifically mentioned in Heading No. 83.09 we consider that this specific Entry will prevail on the general entry relating to the LPG cylinders.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider that the view taken by the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) was not correct and as a result the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per the law. Ordered accordingly.