Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member - Heard both sides.

2. It is the case of the department that "Bearing Housing Assembly" and "Turbine Wheel" manufactured by the appellants are two distinct and separate items having separate functions even though both are used in the manufacture of "Turbo Chargers". Hence, it has been alleged by the Department that the appellants can only clear Turbine Wheels in the DTA, to the extent of 50% of FOB value of exports of Turbine Wheels only. Since, they have exported only Rs. 72,683/- worth of one consignment of Turbine Wheels, they are entitled to clear Rs. 36,342/- worth of Turbine Wheel in the DTA on payment of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 23/2003-C.E., dated 31-3-2003. The impugned demand has been confirmed by the adjudicating Commissioner as the appellants have cleared the impugned goods valued at Rs. 12,09,61,095/- to the DTA at concessional rate as against their entitlement of Rs. 36,342/- only. It has been further alleged by the department that the extended period of limitation is applicable as the appellants had not informed the department that they are using both imported and indigenous raw material though one of the conditions stipulated in the impugned Notification No. 23/2003-C.E., dated 31-3-2003 is that the concessional rate of duty under the said notification is applicable to goods cleared in the DTA only if such goods are manufactured fully out of imported raw materials.

3. The ld. Counsel for the appellants mainly argued that the appellants are entitled to DTA clearance up to 50% of the FOB value on total export value of Bearing Housing Assembly, which is similar to Turbine Wheels both being parts of Turbo Chargers. He has also argued on the ground of time-bar.

4.Prima facie, we find that the goods exported namely Bearing Housing Assembly is not similar to goods cleared in the DTA namely Turbine Wheels. Similar goods are goods which although not alike in all respects have like characteristics and like component material which enable them to perform the same function and make them commercially interchangeable. Similar goods are also expected to have similar quality, reputation and trademark. Prima facie, we find that Bearing Housing Assembly and Turbine Wheels have different characteristics; different functions and they are not commercially interchangeable. The appellants have not demonstrated before us any similarity between these two products besides blankly stating that both are components of Turbo chargers.

5. Moreover, the department has been kept in the dark regarding use of both indigenous and imported raw materials. Prima facie, we do not find anything wrong in the department invoking extended period. The appellants have also not pleaded financial hardship except stating that they have a strong case on merits.

6. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the appellants have not made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of the pre-deposit. Accordingly, we direct the appellants to pre-deposit 50% of the duty amount within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order and to report compliance four weeks thereafter. Subject to compliance with the above direction, pre-deposit of the balance amount shall remain waived and recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal.