ORDER
1. This is a Revision Application filed before the Central Government by the Appellant (Company) under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962 which stands transferred, under the provisions of Section 131-B ibid to the Appellate Tribunal. The Revision Application is to be disposed of by the Tribunal as if it were an appeal filed before it.
2. The goods which are the subject of these proceedings are “pressure transducers”. It has been explained by the appellants that they are manufacturers of high-density polyethlene (HDPE). The pressure transducers are required to measure the material pressure of the hot molten plastic in the extruders. It is stated that the pressure measurement is carried out in close proximity of the molten plastic by installing a strain gauge mounted in a diaphragm. This bonded strain gauge mounted in the diaphragm is said to measure the variation in the pressure and convert the pressure signal into an electric signal on the remote recording unit. It is stated that this works on the principle of variation of electrical resistance by variation of strain.
3. The goods have been classified under sub-heading (1) of Heading No. 85.18/27 of the Customs Tariff Schedule. The main heading covers various kinds of electrical apparatus, including “mounted piezo-electric crystals”, and sub-heading (1) thereof, titled “not elsewhere specified”, would apply to such mounted piezo-electric crystals. The Customs authorities appear to have treated the articles imported as falling within this description. As against this, it is the contention of the appellants that the goods imported should be classified under Heading No. 90.24, which covers inter alia “instruments and apparatus for measuring, checking, or automatically controlling. pressure. of liquids of gases..” They have contended that this is a specific description and further that the piezo-electric effect is not being made use of and therefore classification under Heading No. 85.18/27(1) with reference to that description is not applicable.
4. Replying on behalf of the Respondent, Shri Iyer did not dispute that articles falling within Chapter 90 of the Customs Tariff Schedule were excluded from the scope of Chapter 85 ibid (by virtue of note 1(1) to Section XVI). However, he pointed out that “mounted piezo electrical crystals” would fall within heading No. 85.18/27. If the goods in question were held not to fall within this Heading, they could be considered for assessment under Chapter 90. Even in that case, since an electrical principle was said to be involved, he submitted that Heading No. 90.28 would be more appropriate than heading No. 90.24, as the former heading covered electrical instruments and apparatus, the electric counterparts of which fell under the latter Heading. Further, since the goods imported did not constitute a complete instrument of apparatus, but a part thereof, their assessment would be under Heading 90.29, which covers parts or accessories suitable for use solely or principally with articles falling within, inter alia, Heading Nos. 90.24 and 90.28.
5. The Tribunal observes that, as between Chapters 85 and 90 of the Customs Tariff Schedule, it is prima facie Chapter 90 which would be applicable to such measuring instruments and apparatus. Heading No. 85.18/27 would; be applicable if the goods could be considered as mounted piezo-electric crystals”. In this connection it was urged by Shri Kapur for the appellants that the instrument did not make use of the piezo-electric effect and did not contain a piezo- electric crystal. 1 he Assistant Collector had, however, made an assumption in this regard without any evidence to support it.
6. The Tribunal finds that there is substance in this contention of Shri Kapur. Nowhere in the records is it stated that the goods make use of the piezo-electric effect or contain a piezo-electric crystal. On the contrary, it is specifically stated in the Revision Application that the goods work on the principle of variation of electrical resistance by variation of strain, whereby it is apparent that piezo-electric effect is not being made use of. The only implication that the piezo-electric effect is made use of is contained in the order of the Assistant Collector, wherein he has referred to Sl. No. 8(v) of Notification No. 172 dated 8-8-1977. In this Notification which gives partial exemption to certain goods, “mounted-piezo electric crystals including transducers” are excluded from the benefit of the concession. From this, the Assistant Collector appears to have inferred that all transducers must be mounted piezo-electric crystals. Such a conclusion is obviously unjustified, particularly as Shri Iyer himself explained that the term “transducers” covers a large number and variety of instruments, which might or might not make use of the piezoelectric effect. Apart from the reference to “transducers” in conjunction with “mounted piezo electric-crystals” in the above mentioned Notification, the Assistant Collector does not appear to have had any ground for inferring that the goods in question consisted of, or contained, mounted piezo-electric crystals.
7. Shri Iyer, on behalf of the Department, did not claim that on the evidence on record there was any reason to consider that the goods consisted of, or contained, piezo-electric crystals.
8. From the illustration of the goods in the literature produced, the Tribunal also finds that they consist of an assemblage of parts, and, even assuming that they contain a piezo-electric crystal, the assemblage should be considered as definitely more than a mounted piezo-electric crystal. This would be another reason for excluding the goods from the scope of heading No. 85.18/27.
9. The Tribunal accordingly considers that the classification of the goods under heading No. 85.18/27 was not correct. The goods should appropriately fall within Chapter 90, which covers, among other things, measuring and checking instruments and apparatus. Question that remains is whether they should more appropriately be classified under heading No. 90.24(1) as claimed by the appellants, or 90.29(1) as contended by Shri Iyer. This is a somewhat academic question, since the rate of duty in either case would be the same. There is no doubt that the appellants are entitled to re-assessment of the goods at the rate of duty claimed by them, i.e., that applicable to heading No. 90.24(1) at the material time. In the result, the Tribunal allows the appeal and directs that consequential refund of duty be granted by the Customs authorities to the appellants within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.