CC (ACU) Vs. SHRIRAM PISTONS & RINGS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in this appeal, filed by Revenue is whether piston rings exported by M/s. Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. are covered under the DEPB Schedule Group Code No. 61. Serial No. 78 as "Pig Iron Products."

(2.) SHRI D.N. Chaudhary, learned D.R. submitted that the Respondents filed two Manual DEPB -cum -EPCG Shipping Bills dated 31.8.99 wherein they sought to export the items mentioned as "Automotive Castings (Machined) - Piston Rings" under the DEPB Schedule Group Code No. 61 SI. No. 67; that subsequently the Respondents amended the description of the goods as "Pig Iron Products - Piston Rings"; that the Deputy Commissioner, under the Adjudication Order No. 3/99 dated 21.9.99, held that the Piston Rings cannot be classified under DEPB Schedule either under Group Code No. 61 SI. No. 67 as "Automotive Castings (Machined) or Group Code 61 SI. No. 78 as Pig Iron Products" holding that Automotive Castings (Machined) are the commodities which are in the form of castings only even after machining and are not known in the market as any other part or item or commodity; that he also gave his findings that similarly Pig iron products are those which are manufactured in primary form and do not attain the identifiable form of any other part or item or commodity; that further as per DEPB Schedule all the automotive parts are not covered as automotive castings or pig iron products under the DEPB Schedule; that certain automotive parts have been specifically covered under different serial numbers of Group Code 61, for example Connecting Rods - -SI. No. 286, Crank Shaft - SI. No. 289/290, Piston Pin/Piston in fully machined condition SI. No. 359; that it is thus evident that the intention is to grant DEPB only in respect of a few automobile parts which have been specifically mentioned in the DEPB Schedule; that if the Respondent's contention is accepted, all automobile parts shall be eligible for DEPB rates as they would be either castings or forgings and all the entries would thus become redundant. The learned DR further, submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly allowed the DEPB benefit on the ground that the practice at Mumbai Port and Delhi ICD is to allow piston rings under Pig iron product as the clearance at one port cannot create binding force to allow the same benefit at other ports; that piston rings are identifiable automobile engine part and it cannot be called automotive castings (machined) or pig iron product; that even in commercial and trade parlance, these are called as "piston rings" only. He also mentioned that no specific rate exists for piston ring in DEPB Schedule; that a pig iron product is not a generic description for piston rings for which 'automotive parts' may only be the generic terms; that accordingly General Instruction No. 3 to Appendix 28A is not applicable. He finally submitted that the classification of a product cannot be decided merely by taking into account the composition, of the product or the process of manufacture of the product.

(3.) 1. We have considered the submission of both the sides. The Commissioner, under the impugned Order, has allowed the benefit of DEPB to piston ring under Group Code 61, Sl. No. 78 of the DEPB Rate List which reads as "Pig Iron Products" relying upon the General Instruction No. 3 of Appendix 28A of the Handbook of Procedure which reads as under: -