G.P. Agarwal, Member (J)

1. The issue involved in both the present appeals centres around the interpretation of Notification No. 242/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 and Notification No. 112/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987.

2. Brief facts leading to the present dispute are that, the appellants imported Specialised Cordierite/Mullite Refractory Special Shapes (Blocks) Batts which were assessed to duty by the Customs Authorities under Heading 6902.90 at the rate of 60% basic duty + 40% auxiliary duty + 15% C.V. duty without extending the benefit under Notification No. 242/76-Ctts., dated 2-8-1976 and Notification No. 112/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. It appears that subsequently the appellants filed their two separate refund claims on the ground that imported refractory bricks of special shape or quality were exempt from basic customs duty in excess of 40% ad valorem in terms of Notification No. 242/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 and further that the same were also exempt from auxiliary duty of Customs under Notification No. 112/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the same by his two different Orders. Against these two Orders of the Assistant Collector the appellants filed their two separate appeals before the Collector (Appeals) who vide his common Order-in-Appeal rejected the same. Hence the present two appeals.

3. Arguing on behalf of the appellants, Shri B. Saha, learned counsel, submitted that the authorities below erred in rejecting the refund claims of the appellants on the ground that the subject goods, namely, refractory bricks imported are "spares" for future use in the furnace and not "component" for erection of furnace in the factory of the appellants. It was stressed by him that the Collector (Appeals) erred in making a distinction between "Spares" and "Component" by defining "Spares" as those for future use in the furnace, and the "Components" as those which go into erection of furnace. He took us through the said Notification No. 242/76-Cus. and also to Notification No. 112/87-Cus. and submitted that these Notifications exempt refractory bricks of special shape or quality for use as component parts of industrial furnaces and submitted that, since the Customs Act does not define the term "Component Parts" reference is permissible to the dictionary meaning of the word "Component" as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of C. Excise, MANU/SC/0342/1989 : 1989 (43) E.L.T. 178 (SC) . He laid stress on paragraph 3 of the Report wherein it is stated by the Supreme Court that according to the Webster Comprehensive Dictionary, International Edition the word "Component" inter alia means a constituent part. He also cited the case of Electrosteel Castings Ltd. v. Collector of C. Excise, MANU/CE/0732/1987 : 1989 (43) E.L.T. 305, wherein the term "Part" of a machine has been stated to mean that "A component, whose absence will disable a machine or appliance, must be regarded as an essential ingredient or part of that machine". The case of Hatim Carbon Co. (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, 1988 (17) E.C.R. 241, was also cited wherein it was held that "Carbon brushes used in electric motors fall in the specific entry for 'parts of electric motors'". He also referred to Mc Graw Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical terms - 4th Edition, wherein "Component" has been defined as 'A constituent part of a system' and "Part" as 'An element of a sub-assembly, not normally useful by itself and not amenable to further disassembly for maintenance purpose'. Reference was also made to Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, New Edition, wherein "Component" has been defined as 'making up; forming one of the elements or parts; one of the parts or elements of which anything is made up or into which it may be resolved' and "Part" as 'something less than the whole; a portion; that which along with others make up, a constituent; a component'. To top his argument, he also drew our att