Skip to content


National Engg. Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Reported in(1983)(14)ELT(2003)TriDel
AppellantNational Engg. Industries Ltd.
RespondentCollector of Customs
Excerpt:
.....and found that the documents did not indicate that the goods were semi-finished components of bearings. since classification declared at the time of importation was 75.33/40, and the goods were also out of customs charge, the claim could not be verified at this stage and he rejected the appeal as having no merits.3. the appellants contended in the revision application that they had to classify the goods under 73.33/40 as their earlier appeal for classification under 84.61(1) had been rejected by the assistant collector. while admitting that the drawing number is not mentioned in the invoice, they enclosed a copy of the indent and acceptance of the party which indicates the drawing numbers which can now be co-related.the goods are semi-finished rolled steel rings for producing taper.....
Judgment:
1. The Revision Application dated 4-2-80 against order-in-appeal No.S/49-781/79 Air dated 10-8-79 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, has been transferred by the Govt. of India to the Tribunal for disposal in terms of Section 131B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. A consignment of rolled steel rings was imported and assessed under heading 73.33/40 vide B/E Cash No. 726 dated 14-7-78. Re-assessment was claimed under heading 84.62(1) with consequential refund but was rejected by the Assistant Collector since no catalogue was produced but drawing were supplied which could not be allocated to the goods imported. The Appellate Collector also could not connect the drawings with the invoice and found that the documents did not indicate that the goods were semi-finished components of bearings. Since classification declared at the time of importation was 75.33/40, and the goods were also out of Customs charge, the claim could not be verified at this stage and he rejected the appeal as having no merits.

3. The Appellants contended in the Revision Application that they had to classify the goods under 73.33/40 as their earlier appeal for classification under 84.61(1) had been rejected by the Assistant Collector. While admitting that the drawing number is not mentioned in the invoice, they enclosed a copy of the indent and acceptance of the party which indicates the drawing numbers which can now be co-related.

The goods are semi-finished rolled steel rings for producing taper roller bearing races haying more than 85 mm bore diametre. In terms of Rule 2A of the Customs Tariff, the goods having acquired the essential characteristics of the finished products. Since these goods have acquired the essential characteristics in respect of size, composition and shape of the taper roller bearing, the consignment is assessable to duty under heading 84.62(1).

4. The case was originally fixed for hearing by the Tribunal on 3-6-1983 but the appellants requested for a hearing in Bombay. They were informed that this was not possible and were given a further opportunity on 27-7-1983 to either appear or forward their written submission. In a letter dated 20-6-1983 they have reiterated their earlier contentions. In addition, they have stated that catalogues are available only for conventional bearings, whereas they manufacture special bearings, according to the drawings. "So far as allocation of these rings with the drawings is concerned, it is mainly based on the size, such as, ID-OD and width of the rings concurrently tallying with those of the fully finished part i.e., races, except a marginal allowance kept for the machining of the said parts." They have also furnished some dimensions purporting to co-relate the items of the invoice with the drawings, and have requested for sympathetic consideration of their appeal.

5. Shri Chatterjee stated that the drawings supplied were not adequate to connect them with the invoice and the goods. There is no evidence to show that they are semi-finished components of roller bearings as claimed and the goods are also out of Customs charge. They have, therefore, been correctly assessed on merits as other articles of iron and steel.

6. These goods have been invoiced as rolled steel rings and no evidence has been adduced that they are, in fact, taper roller bearings in semi-finished form. We agree with the Department that they are appropriately classifiable under heading 73.33/40 as other articles of iron and steel. The appeal is accordingly rejected.


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