Judgment:
1. In all these appeals common question of law and fact arises, hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law. The Revenue is appellant in this case. They are aggrieved with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay. The importer had imported thinwalled bearings not specified in ISI Specification 4774/1968. The customs authorities had charged C.V. Duty under Item 68 against Item 34A of erstwhile CET. Therefore, the importer filed the refund claim seeking reassessment of the said item under Tariff Item 68 for the purpose of C.V. Duty. It had been pleaded by the importer that the dimension of the item are within the range of said ISI Specification, then they are to be treated as thinwalled bearing for the purpose of levy of C.V.Duty under Item 34A. Otherwise, they were treated as thick-walled bearings falling outside the scope of Item 34A.2. The Assistant Collector while dealing with the said refund claim held that the classification of thinwalled bearing is to be governed by the trade name and their use. If the item is used as motor vehicle parts, then they are required to be classified as thinwalled bearings.
He has also rejected ISI Specification No. 4774/1968 in respect of thinwalled bearings is not comprehensive for defining or specifying the product in the tariff, the same cannot act as a guideline. He has held that thinwalled bearings essentially has to be a motor vehicle part, hence known as thinwalled bearings in the trade. He has further held that as per practice obtaining in the Customs House, the bearings and Bushes with wall thickness upto 3116 (4. 7625 MM) having application on motor vehicles and tractors, which are known as thinwalled bearings in the trade are chargeable to C.V. Duty under Item 34A of CET. In that view of the matter he rejected the claim of the importers. On appeal the Learned Collector reversed the order on the ground that the goods have been classified as "Plain Shaft Bearings" under 84.63 (2) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for the purpose of levy of Customs duty and not as "Thinwalled Bearings". He has held that "Thinwalled Bearings " are leviable to C.V.D. under Item 34A of CET. Therefore, they are to be assessed under Item 68 of CET for the purpose of C.V. Duty.
3. When the case came up for hearing, none appeared for the importer.
The registry had sent several notices for service, which came back undelivered. Therefore, service of the notice was directed to be done through Collector, the same was done.
4. The Learned DR produced a copy of service of notice on the importer.
They have been served on 12-6-1995. As they did not appear the hearing of the case was taken up for decision on merits. The Learned DR submitted that the case is no longer res Integra and the same is covered by rulings rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Kwality Laminators as decided by Final Order No.C/119/95-B2, dated 15-3-1995 [reported in 1995 (79) E.L.T. 232 (Tribunal)] as well as by Order delivered in the case of CMC. Bros. & Co. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay as per Order No. 378-386/88-B2, dated 28-7-1988 [reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 589 (Tribunal)]. The Tribunal after a detailed consideration and discussion has held that in M/s. G.M.S. Bros. & Co. that the imported item is classifiable under 34A of CET for the purpose of C.V. Duty and not under Tariff Item 68 as claimed by the importers. The said ratio was applied in the case of Collector of Customs v. Kwality Laminators and applying the said ratio the Collector's appeals were allowed. The present position is that the Tribunal has now confirmed the classification of the item of the impugned goods under Item 34A and not under Item 68 of CET for the purpose of C.V. Duty. The finding given in the case of Collector of Customs v. Kwality Laminators in paras 4 and 5 is reproduced herein below : "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 Tariff Item 68 and Tariff Item 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 judgments 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 India 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 thinwalled 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 thinwalled bearings would be going beyond the very definition of such bearings. We are of the view that the bearings imported by the appellants are thinwalled bearings. Accordingly, we hold that the bimetal bearings imported by the appellants are thinwalled bearings. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in these appeals.
The appeals are dismissed." 5. The ratio, we find, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and following 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." 5. Applying the above ratio, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed.