1. The dispute relates to classification of Refractory products and demand consequent to the classification issue are involved in these two appeals respectively. Whether Refractory Sheaths, Refractory sleeves and Refractory combustion boats are classifiable under Chapter Heading 69.01 as claimed by the party or under Heading 69.07 as per Department, is an issue to be considered in these cases. The Assistant Collector held that they are classifiable under Heading 69.07 on the ground that products are capable of being used domestically in laboratory for testing purpose/chemical or other technical uses. On the other hand, the Collector (Appeals) decided the issue in favour of the party holding that items are capable of resisting very high degree of temperature exceeding 1500C, unlike non-refractory Ceramic products and, accordingly, they are classifiable under Heading 69.01 as claimed by the party. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), the Department has come before us by way of these appeals contending that Assistant Collector was right in classifying the products under Chapter Heading 69.07 after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances that the goods are meant for industrial and chemical use etc."69.01.
Bricks, Blocks, tiles and other ceramic goods of siliceous earths; refractory ceramic goods such as bricks, blocks, tiles and similar refractory ceramic constructional goods, retorts, crucibles, muffles, nozzles, plugs, supports, cupels, tubes, pipes, sheets and rods.69.07 Ceramic wares for laboratory, chemical or other technical uses; ceramic troughs, tubes and similar receptacles of a kind used in agriculture; ceramic pots, jars and similar ar- ticles of a kind used for the conveyance or packing of goods." 3. When the matter had come up for final hearing, none appeared for the respondents but we find that there was a request from them to decide the case on merits based upon their written submissions. Accordingly, we have proceeded to pass this order on hearing Shri R.K. Kapoor, learned SDR and on perusal of the records since learned D.R. reiterated grounds of appeals.
4. In the written submissions, it was submitted that Refractory Ceramic goods are specifically included in Tariff Heading No. 69.01 whereas the products under Heading No. 69.07 are only Ceramic goods without the adjunct 'Refractory'. As per ISI Specification, refractory materials are non-metallic material or product having Pyro-metric cone equivalent corresponding to not less than 1500C, that is, susceptibility to very high temperature and this issue was rightly considered by the Collector (Appeals) in deciding the issue. They have also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. v.Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1992 (60) E.L.T. 392 (Tri.) where end-use of the goods is irrelevant.
5. We have considered the matter. We find that Collector (Appeals) was right in deciding the issue taking into consideration the susceptibility of the products to very high temperature and since the goods in question are capable of resisting very high degree of temperature exceeding 1500C, they are refractory material and not non-refractory Ceramic products. Further he has observed that if the Assistant Collector had any doubt that these products were not refractory products, he could have easily gone for Departmental chemical test and the same has not been done in this case. Further we find that 69.01 is illustrative and not exhaustive and Entry 69.07 is specific with reference to ceramic wares. Since we do not find any flaw in the impugned orders, we uphold the impugned orders and these appeals filed by the Department are dismissed.