ORDER
V. Rajamanickam, Member (T)
1. Shri A.K. Jain, learned Advocate while arguing the case has stated that the appellants had imported Isolating valves which should be classified under Customs Tariff 84.61(2) as ‘Isolating valves’ but the Department had assessed the same under Heading C.T.A., 84.61(1) as “not elsewhere specified”. That the Asstt. Collector had in his order stated that the catalogue showed them as ‘Hopkinson Ferranti Stop Valves made of Iron & Steel’ and had confirmed the original order of assessment in the Bill of Entry and also the Collector (Appeals) had upheld the order of the Asstt. Collector stating that as per the import invoice the goods had been described as “Hopkinsons Parallel Slide Valve” and that the appellants had not produced any evidence to prove that the impugned goods are Isolating valves, and had therefore, rejected the same.
2. Shri A.K. Jain, learned Advocate during his submissions stated that the appellants had imported Stop valves and he produced a catalogue with the drawing of the said valve. He also produced in support of his arguments the definition of valve from the book “The Pipeline Glossary and Directory” edited by Shri CD. Shann. The definition of valve is as under —
“Valve: Block/Isolating/Line/Section. A valve designed to close-in or shut off fluid flow usually with respect to a transmission pipeline, main line or trunk line.”
He also produced extracts from Indian Boiler Regulations as amended upto end of September, 1988 which reads as follows:-
“281 A(1) (b) (i): the boiler shall have provision made for isolating the steam and water connections of the chambers from the boilers. Such isolating valves, shall be capable of being locked in the open position and should preferably be of the parallel slide type but if screw down stop valves are fitted, those on the water connection shall be mounted with the spindle horizontal to avoid the possibility of an air lock. The steam and water connections of the chambers shall be not less than 25 mm bore. In those cases where sequencing control water valves are fitted, the steam isolating valve may be omitted.”
By the above extract Shri A.K. Jain, learned Advocate sought to explain what an Isolating valve is capable of doing. Further, he referred to the letter of the appellants to the Chief Inspector of Steam Boilers dated 12-5-1982 which is part of the record, indicating therein that they had proposed to replace the existing Isolating valve and had sought the approval of the Chief Inspector of Steam Boilers. He also referred to a drawing for the purpose of establishing that the appellants had wanted to replace the existing isolating valve and had done so by the said importation. He also further stated that the appellants had claimed classification under Chapter Heading 84.61(2) C.T.A. and the burden of proving classification rests with the Department. He cited the case law 1981 (8) ELT 913 (Bom) Bombay High Court, Naveen Chimanlal Sutaria v. U.O.I. and Ors. wherein it was held “if it was the Department’s stand that the goods fell under Item 22(4)(a)…the burden of proving was on the department…this elementary and salutary rule of law has, in this case been entirely ignored by the Department.” He, therefore, urged, that he had produced evidence about the valve imported as being an Isolating valve and he had no further literature on the subject.
3. The learned JDR, Shri M.K. Sohal submitted that in the Bill of Entry and the Invoice the description was as “Hopkinsons Parallel Slide Valve”. Subsequently, the appellants claimed that the said valves were “Hopkinson Ferranti Stop Valves” and in their drawing which is produced, the same has been described as non-return valve. He, therefore, argued that there was no consistency in the description of the valve imported and therefore, the appellants have not been able to fully establish that they had imported Isolating valve and, therefore, their request for classification under Chapter Heading 84.61(2) C.T.A. is not maintainable and he reiterated the order of the Asstt. Collector and the Collector (Appeals).
4. The appellants have reproduced their contentions raised before the Asstt. Collector –
“The valve imported in the above consignment is an isolating valve between the main header and boiler. This valve is operated whenever the boiler is to be isolated for working from the main header. Hence the steam should not leak from the main header towards the boiler connected pipe line etc. to enable the workmen to work safely. Due to higher pressure and temperature, the parallel slide valve is to be used for the above purpose.”
And thereby in their appeal memorandum stated that they have imported isolating valve and in support of their contentions they had enclosed letters to the Chief Inspector of Boilers, drawings indicating that they had proposed to replace the existing 8″ Hopkinsons make Isolating valve by another Isolating valve and also stating that the function of the Isolating valve is to isolate one boiler from the rest of the boiler house steam lines in case of plant shut down or breakdown or the annual inspection job and as such the Isolating valves are well covered by Chapter 84.61 (2).
5. The submissions made in the appeal memorandum as well as in the hearing have been examined. The Bill of Entry description is “Hopkinsons Parallel Slide Valve” and so is the Invoice description and at the original and appellate stage before the Collector (Appeals) they have produced documents describing the same as “Stop valves.” The learned Advocate was specifically asked during the hearing to give the function of each of these valves whether these were one and the same because the description varies. He, however, produced only the dictionary meaning of a valve wherein the word ‘isolating’ has been mentioned and also the extract from the boiler regulations. In that particular extract stop valve has also been mentioned and the particular extract does not help in stating that the valve imported is an isolating valve by a mere reproduction of the requirement the appellants have not been able to prove their contention that they have imported an isolating valve. Further, the drawing produced does not make any mention of replacing by 8″ isolating valve. It merely says 8″ existing valve to be replaced by 8″ Hopkinsons make valve. The Tariff Heading 84.61 refers to many types of valves, namely isolating valves, non-return valves, safety valves, pressure reducing valves etc. etc. and these carry a rate of duty of 40% and of other valves not elsewhere specified carry a rate of 60%. Inasmuch as the valves imported by the appellants as per description of the Bill of Entry and the Invoice is Hopkinsons Parallel Slide Valve, it cannot be said to be covered by Chapter Heading 84.61(2). The case law cited by the learned Advocate that the burden to prove the classification is on the department does not alter the situation here as the department in coining to the conclusion that Chapter Heading 84.61(2) as not applicable was able to come to that conclusion as no other description of the valve imported had been given, other than slide valve which is not covered under the Heading Isolating valve. As such, therefore, the appeal has no merits and is dismissed.