K.L. Rekhi, Member

1. By his consolidated order-in-appeal impugned in Appeal No. C-160/78-B2, the Appellate Collector had disposed of 12 appeals of the appellants. The appellants had filed only one revision application against it before the Central Government as per the practice then in force. However, on the learned representative of the department pointing out the need to file 11 supplementary appeals and our direction to the appellants to do so, the appellants have since done the needful. We have condoned the delay in filing the supplementary appeals. Appeal No. C-833/78-B2 appears to be a duplicate of Appeal No. C-160/78-B2. However, Appeal No. C-265/80-B2 is a separate one and arises out of a different order-in-appeal.

2. The 14 appeals now under consideration involve a common point at issue and relate to the same appellants. They are, therefore, being disposed of by this common order.

3. The appellants imported Tungsten Filament Wire, as per the description given in the import invoices and the bills of entry in 13 out of 14 cases. Tungsten Filament Wire is that hair-thin wire which glows inside the incandescent bulb and provides light when the electric current is switched on. It is made of high purity tungsten metal. In the remaining one case, the description of the imported goods given is Tungsten Rod/Wire. The department has assessed the goods as a resistance wire under item 73(23) of the erstwhile Indian Customs Tariff. The appellants stated that their case all along had been that they should be assessed as tungsten virgin metal under item 70(7) ICT or, in the alternative, under the residuary entry for metal manufactures under item 70(1) ICT. The learned representative of the department pointed out that at the original stage the appellants' claim was only for item 70(1) and not 70(7). At this, the appellants dropped item 70(7) and pressed their claim only under item 70(1) ICT. So, in short, the point of dispute before us is whether Tungsten Wire/Filament Wire fell under item 70(1) or 73(23) ICT. The rival entries read as under :

"70(1) All non-ferrous alloys and manufactures of metals and alloys not otherwise specified:

Provided that any such alloys or manufactures containing more than 97 per cent of aluminium shall be deemed to be aluminium in a crude form or aluminium manufactures, as the case may be, and dutiable as such."

"73(23) Nichrome and other electrical resistance wires and strips."

4. The appellants relied on Delhi High Court "judgment dated 31-3-1980 in Civil Writ Petition No. 710/1979 - M/s. Kalpana Industries v. Union of India and Ors.. The learned representative of the department asserted that though this was the only High Court judgment on the point at issue, yet the Tribunal was not bound to follow it because -

(1) the judgment was concerned with Tungsten wire and not Tungsten Filament Wire;

(2) certain technical aspects of the matter had not been placed before the High Court;

(3) while the judgment had quashed the classification under tariff item 73(23) on the ground that the goods were not resistance wire, it had not indicated the alternate entry applicable to the goods; and

(4) the Supreme Court had admitted the department's special leave petition against the judgment and had stayed the operation of the judgment

He urged that the present matters should be placed before a Larger Bench of the Tribunal because of two conflicting orders having already been passed by the Tribunal Benches, vide -

(i) order No. B-235/8-5 dated 12-4-1985 in the case of Sylvania and Laxman Ltd. which held that item 73(23) was specific and

(ii) order No. 1105/83-B dated 2-12-1983 in the case of Kalpana Industries which held that item 70(1) was applicable.

5. We have given our earnest consideration to the matter. The difference between Tungsten Wire and Tungsten Filament Wire is that the latter is a much finer wire than the former. If the relatively thicker Tungsten Wire was held not to be resistance wire by the Delhi High Court, we wo