Full Judgment
2. The appellants imported Recrystallined Silicon Carbide refractory bricks (beams) as component parts. The goods were assessed under Tariff Heading 6902.90 as claimed by the party but benefit of exemption of Notification No. 242/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 was not extended on the ground that the beams are different from bricks and the Notification exempts only refractory bricks. They have become unsuccessful on this issue before both the authorities below. Hence this appeal.
3. Shri B. Saha learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the item imported by the appellants is nothing but a brick but it is called as beam since it is of long shape. He said that this brick is not used in construction of buildings and should not be understood in that sense but nevertheless it is a brick used in the furnace as a component part and it is designed to take lateral load and bending movement in a furnace. He said there is no distinction between parts and component parts in the Customs Tariff and since it is brick of special shape and as part of industrial furnace the exemption in terms of Notification No. 242/76-Cus. cannot be denied. He said that brick can be of shape and size and different types of bricks are recognised under ISI. He referred to the Indian Glossary of Terms relating to refractory materials, Book No. IS: 4041 :1987 to show the various category of bricks of special shape as Arch Bricks, Bevel Bricks, Bull-nose or Jam Bricks, Circle Bricks, Dome Bricks, Double Bricks, Skew-type Bricks, Key Bricks, Radial Bricks, Straight Bricks, three quarter bricks etc. He said that beam as such has not been included in ISI since refractory beam of this type was not manufactured in India.
He contended that Tariff Heading 69.02 covers refractory bricks, blocks and tiles and similar refracted ceramic constructional goods of all shape other than those of siliceous fossil meals and accordingly bricks of special shape are eligible for exemption in terms of Notification No. 242/76.
4. While countering the arguments Shri M.K. Jain learned SDR, for the Revenue submitted that the goods were imported from Germany and supplier clearly described it as 'beam'. He said that beam cannot be understood as brick as argued by the appellants since beam is different from brick as per the definition of McGraw Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms that beam is for carrying lateral load and bending movement whereas a 'brick is building material. He said that ISI specification also does not take note of beam while dealing with the specifications of brick as brick is different from beam. He said that bricks do not include beam and since notification exempts only brick, the benefit cannot be extended to item in question in terms of above notification. He referred to the decision in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 89 wherein it was held that refractory bricks of special shape, design used for construction of teaming ladle of open hearth furnaces are classifiable under Heading 69.01/02 but still cannot be considered as component parts of industrial furnace and the benefit of the Notification is not available to such type of refractory bricks. He also cited the decision in the case of Collector v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. reported in 1992 (57) E.L.T. 473 wherein it was held fused silica refractory is not refractory bricks and accordingly benefit of exemption under Notification No. 242/76-Cus. cannot be extended.
5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. From the invoice it is clear the subject goods are Recrystal-lined Silicon Carbide Refractory beams. We are not convinced with the arguments advanced by the appellants' Counsel that brick and beam are one and the same. He has not placed on record any catalogue or technical literature from the foreign supplier to substantiate his claim that refractory beam is nothing but a brick. ISI specification also does not take note of beam while dealing with the specifications for bricks and types of bricks and beam has not been included in the category of such bricks as it was rightly pointed out by the Senior Departmental Representative. Apart from this fact plain reading of the Notification No. 242/76-Cus. it is clear that it exempts refractory bricks of special shape or quality for use as component parts of industrial furnace falling under Heading 69.01/02 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. We find that in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in 1993 (63) E.L.T. 173 while considering the issue whether refractory blocks are exempted from Notification No. 242/76-Cus. it was held that refractory bricks and blocks are separate entity and have separate existence and Notification 242/76-Cus. exempts bricks and not blocks. Accordingly since notification exempts bricks and not beams, we do not find any merit in the claim of the appellants. In the view, we have taken we uphold the impugned order and accordingly the appeal filed by the party is hereby rejected.