Skip to content


Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1983)LC991DTri(Delhi)
AppellantBharat Heavy Electricals Limited
RespondentCollector of Customs
Excerpt:
.....63 (30) ict on the ground that the subject weld wires contained 15% chromium and were, therefore, steel alloy wires and not steel wires. the appellants stated that the subject wires had a diameter of 2.4 mm. they attacked assessment of the subject wires under item 63 (30) on the ground that this item covered only rods, bars and flats and not wires. on referring to the tariff, we find force in their point which even the department's representative conceded after discussion. the arguments of the two sides thereafter centred on the point whether item 63 (25) or item 63 (28) would be more appropriate for re-classification of the goods. reverting to the lower authorities' objection to classifying the goods under item 63 (25), the appellants stated that unless the context otherwise required,.....
Judgment:
2. In this case, the appellants seek reassessment of weld wires at the lower rate of duty under Item 63 (25) of the erstwhile Indian Customs tariff. The lower authorities have rejected their claim and maintained the assessment made under Item 63 (30) ICT on the ground that the subject weld wires contained 15% chromium and were, therefore, steel alloy wires and not steel wires. The appellants stated that the subject wires had a diameter of 2.4 mm. They attacked assessment of the subject wires under Item 63 (30) on the ground that this item covered only rods, bars and flats and not wires. On referring to the Tariff, we find force in their point which even the Department's representative conceded after discussion. The arguments of the two sides thereafter centred on the point whether Item 63 (25) or Item 63 (28) would be more appropriate for re-classification of the goods. Reverting to the lower authorities' objection to classifying the goods under Item 63 (25), the appellants stated that unless the context otherwise required, steel would include alloy steel also. In support of this argument, they referred to the Central Excise Tariff Item 26AA relating to iron or steel products under which even alloy steel products were assessed by the Department and accepted by the trade. They added that Item 63 (28) suggested by the Department's representative as an alternative classification itself related to all sorts of iron and steel and manufactures thereof not otherwise specified that even this item did not specifically relate to alloy steel and that, in any case this item was more generic and residuary one while Item 63 (25) was specific for iron or steel wire. The Department's representative could give no convincing; answer as to why the specific item 63 (25) should be discarded in favour of the more generic and residuary item 63 (28) when both the items covered iron or steel products only. Since no other more appropriate item of the Indian Customs Tariff for the subject goods was brought to our notice, we hold the specific item 63 (25) as the correct one to cover the subject goods.

3. Accordingly, we allow this appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //