TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (2) TMI 294
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeals is whether the goods described in the Bills of Entry as "Carbon Tubes" made of impervious or resin-impregnated artificial graphite and imported by the appellants for manufacture of mechanical seals, fall under Heading 38.01/19(4) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which relates to "Artificial Graphite", as urged by the appellants, or under Heading 68.01/16(1) as articles of mineral substances, not elsewhere specified, as held by the Department. 3.  The case was argued before us on 10th January, 21st January and 25th February, 1983. We were informed by the appellants that the Madras High Court had already granted them interim relief subject to bank guarantee for half of the duty differential between the two tariff headings. We ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; * * (b) Impregnated or impervious artificial graphite, that is, artificial graphite which, in order to increase its density or its impermeability to gases, has first been impregnated in a vacuum with tars or resins or with solutions of sugars or other organic products, and re-fired to graphitise the carbonaceous residues of these additives. The impregnation process may be repeated several times to obtain a higher density (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed for electrical purposes fall in heading 85.24. (e) Refractory goods, fired as ceramics, with a basis of artificial graphite (heading 69.02 or 69.03). *   * * &e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; * * 4.  There is no dispute that the subject goods were made of artificial graphite. To begin with, the Department's representative reiterated the ground relied upon by the lower authorities, namely, that the subject goods were not chemical products, nor chemical preparations, nor a residual product of chemical or allied industries and could not, therefore, be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lanks" had been assessed by Bombay Custom House under Heading 38.01/19. They added that to their knowledge the Order-in-Appeal of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, referred to above, had not been subjected to review and that Bombay Custom House continued to assess similar goods under Heading 38.01/19 during 1981 and 1982 inspite of Tariff Advice No. 6/77 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and relied upon by the Department's representative. They stated that they were discriminated against by different assessment practices followed by Madras and Bombay Custom Houses. The Department's representative admitted this incongruous position but inspite of repeated directions from the Bench he did not inform us as to how these....