ORDER
G. Sankaran, Member (T)
1. The captioned appeal was initially filed as a revision application before the Central Government which, under the provisions of Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.
2. The issue involved for determination in the present case is the classification under the Custons Tariff Act, 1975 and the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, of certain Ion Exchange Resins imported by the appellants. The lower authorities have held that the goods were correctly classifiable under heading No. 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Schedule, 1975 and under item No. 15-A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The appellants’ claim for classification of the goods under heading No. 38.01/19(9) as water treatment chemical was rejected. Before us, Shri A.V. Rangam, Advocate, for the Appellants, have drawn our attention to the Tribunal’s Order dated 18-12-1982 in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Collector of Customs, Madras – 1983 (1) ETR 23, involving the classification of Ion Exchange Resins, though the nomenclature of the product was different from that of the product in dispute now. The Counsel submitted that the said order, which was in the appellants’ favour, would apply to the facts of the present case. Shri Sunder Rajan, on behalf of the Respondent, while agreeing with Shri A.V. Rangam that the cited order would cover the dispute in the present case, submitted that he would reiterate all the arguments advanced by the Departmental Representative in the earlier case. He added that the earlier order had been challenged before the Supreme Court though he could not say whether the appeal had been admitted.
3. We have considered the submissions of both sides. The Tribunal’s order No. 189/80-C dated 18-12-1982 discusses at length the merits of the dispute and has come to the conclusion that Ion Exchange Copolymerisation products are correctly assessable under heading No. 38.01/19(9) as “Water Treatment Chemicals, not elsewhere specified” and not as “Artificial Resins” under heading No. 39.01/06. Correspondingly the order says, the assessment under item No. 15-A of the Central Excise Tariff must be held to be inappropriate and that item No. 68 is a more appropriate head.
4. No argument has been advanced before us nor do we see any reason to differ from the earlier decision, following which, therefore, we order reassessment of the goods involved in the present dispute under heading No. 38.01/19(9) of the Customs Tariff Schedule, 1975 and item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The consequential relief shall be paid to the appellants within 3 months from the date of this order.
Appeal allowed.