Full Judgment
The notice to the respondents has been duly served by the jurisdictional Collector for which the photo copy of receipt is on record. We have heard Shri K.K. Jha, ld. SDR on the application for condonation of delay of one day and also note that the supplementary appeals had been filed to satisfy the procedural requirement since the main appeal had been filed in time. We are inclined to agree with the plea made before us by the ld. S.D.R. for condoning the delay, which is only of one day. Delay in filing the supplementary appeals is also consequently condoned since we find that the main appeal has been filed in time. The appeals are, therefore, taken up for hearing on merits.
2. Taking up the appeals, we find that the issue involved, herein, is the classification of engine bearings imported by the respondents, herein, for the purpose of additional duty of Customs (CVD). The respondents have claimed refund on the ground that the goods are not assessable under Item 34A of CET as motor vehicle parts, but, according to the respondents, they are correctly assessable as goods not elsewhere specified under Item 68 CET. The jurisdic-tional Assistant Collector of Customs rejected their claim, but on an appeal, the Collector (Appeals) held in their favour that the engine bearings are correctly assessable under Item 68 CET.3. We have heard Shri K.K. Jha, Ld. S.D.R., who submits that the case is sequarely covered by the precedent decision of the Tribunal in its final Order No. 378-385/88 B2 dated 28-7-1988 in the case of Sadhna Automobiles & Genl. Co. v. C.C., Madras [reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T.589 (Tri.)] where classification of similar goods, namely, Bimetal Engine Bearings were held to be correctly classifiable under Item 34A and not under Item 68.
4. We have considered the submissions made. Para 9 of the Tribunal decision cited and relied upon by the ld. D.R. runs as follows : "We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellants have imported bimetal bearings. For the proper disposal of the appeals, we feel that T.I. 68 and T.L 34 of the Central Excise Tariff have to be gone through.
The appellants have laid great emphasis on ISI Specifications. Both the sides have cited various judgements which have been mentioned in the earlier paras. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1982 (10) E.L.T. 476 has held that ISI specifications are relevant only for the quality of the goods but do not change the name of the goods. In the case of Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Union of lnida and Ors. reported in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the tariff entry is to be interpreted as the same is understood by the traders. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Atul Glass Industries Ltd. reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 473 has held that "To our mind, there is a piece of evidence only as to the manner in which the product has to be treated for the purpose of specifications laid down by the Indian Standard Institution." We have also perused the definition of the thin walled bearings. The goods imported by the appellants are to be used in motor cars and other internal combustion engines. This Tribunal has repeatedly held that the tariff advice is not binding to say that bimetal bearings known in the trade as such cannot be called thin walled bearings would be going beyond the very definition of such bearings. We are of the view that the bearings imported by the appellants are thin walled bearings. Accordingly, we hold that the bimetal bearings imported by the appellants are thin walled bearings. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeals. The appeals are dismissed." 5. The ratio, we find, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and follwoing that ratio, we find a lot of substance in the Departmental appeals, which are accordingly allowed holding that the goods are classifiable under Item 34A C.E.T.