TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (3) TMI 207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve carefully considered the appeal. This appeal is for re-assessment of finned tubes under Item 84.17(1), CTA as against the original classification made under Item 73.17/19(1), CTA. As per CCCN Notes at pages 1211 and 1010 these tubes are correctly classifiable under Item 73.17(1), CTA. Customs Tariff Act is based on CCCN and the Item under CCCN vide Explanatory Notes is covered under the Heading 73.17/19. The Explanatory notes though not a part of CTA have pursuasive evidential value and show that how that item is considered in the International trade. Under the circumstances, classification of finned tubes under Item 73.17/19 is in order and the appeal is rejected as inadmissible." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... machinery supplied by the manufacturers. In support of their contentions the appellants submitted that the finned tubes were specific items. It was contended by the appellants that it was not possible to use an ordinary standard tube of Iron and steel for the manufacture of finned tubes, as the process of manufacture is of highly complex one and the tubes are required to conform to stringent specifications. 4. Referring to Rule 3A of Rules of Interpretative, the appellants submitted that the most specific description shall be preferred to a heading which provides more general description. In support of this contention the appellants cited and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Moorco (India) Ltd. v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....71) E.L.T. 711, the appellants submitted that the Tribunal held that according to the Dictionary meaning of the terms `Part' and `Raw-materials', whereas a part which alongwith others makes up or is constituent of something has necessarily to be in a state in which it can be used or fitted in the system of which it constitutes a part. It was therefore submitted by the appellants that the goods imported are specific items meant for ready fitment in the equipment. 6. Referring to the impugned order, the appellants submitted that the Collector (Appeals) had incorrectly relied on the CCCN, though there was no ambiguity. 7. Referring to Rule 2A of Interpretative Rules, the appellants submitted that this Tribunal in the case of Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and considered them. The only dispute and the point of determination in this case is whether the imported goods described HYFIN in the Bill of Entry and Finned Tubes in their appeal, fall under the Tariff Item 73.17/19(1) or Tariff Item 84.17(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. For the sake of convenience the two Tariff Entries are reproduced below :- 73.17/19 : Tubes and pipes and blanks therefor, of iron or steel : (1)Not elsewhere specified (2)Drilling tubes and pipes and blanks therefor (3)Tubes and pipes for boilers falling within Heading No. 84.01/02 and blanks therefor. (4)Tubes and pipes sheathed or lined with corrosion- resisting ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etation of Rule 2(a) and Rule 3(a), it was argued by the appellants that under Rule 3(a) if a heading provides more specific description than another which provides general description, then the more specific heading shall be preferred to the heading which gives more general description. In support of this contention, the ruling of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Moorco (India) Ltd. was cited. We respectfully agree with the Ruling of the Apex Court that a more specific description should be preferred rather than a general heading. Applying this ruling to the facts, we find that description under Chapter Heading 73.17/19 is more specific. 11. Now examining the description of the goods vis-a-vis the Tariff ent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of machinery. Note at page 1010 clearly indicates and provides that finned tubes will be classified under Chapter Heading 73.17/19. We also observe that the Apex Court placed emphasis, holding that the Rule requires the authorities to classify the goods in the heading which satisfies most specific description. 12. On the question that the finned tubes imported by the appellants had very high standards of precision in comparison to the standards prescribed for tubes under IS-1239(Part I)-1973, we observe that there are no similar standards laid down for Finned tubes under the IS standards and therefore comparisons cannot be made. Moreover, for classification purposes, IS standards are not the only deciding factor but there are certai....