S. Venkatesan, Sr. Vice-President

1. These are nine appeals arising out of the combined Order-in Appeal No. S/49-1523/ 77R dated 10-1-1978 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, on 10 appeals (one being a duplicate appeal) filed to him. The appellants had originally filed a single revision application to the Central Government which under Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962, stands transferred to this Tribunal to be disposed of as if it was an appeal presented before the Tribunal. They have subsequently filed eight supplementary appeals having regard to the practice of the Tribunal to require separate appeals to it in respect of each of the appeals covered by a combined Order-in-Appeal.

2. The issue in all these appeals is the same, that is, regarding the classification of several consignments of goods imported by the appellants and described in the Order-in-Appeal as "Beater addition asbestos jointing". These were classified by the Customs authorities under Heading No. 68.01/16 of the Customs Tariff Schedule, at 100% basic duty plus 20% auxiliary duty; and also charged to countervailing duty under Item 22F of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule at 15%. The appellants have contended that the basic Customs duty should have been levied at 60% and 15% auxiliary, namely the rates corresponding to Item 87 of the Indian Customs Tariff which was in force prior to the coming into force of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. They have not specified any particular item of the new tariff under which they claim classification for the levy of basic duty and the rates of 60% + 15%.

3. So far as countervailing duty is concerned, it is the contention of the appellants that their goods did not conform to the description of Item 22F of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule as in force at the relevant time and therefore should not have been charged to any countervailing duty. (In the course of the hearing it was observed that the imports had been effected after the introduction of residuary Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The appellants did not contest that if their goods were not covered by Item 22F, they would have been covered by Item 68. This would not, however, have affected their claim for refund, since at the relevant time imported goods were exempt from the levy of countervailing duty with reference to Item 68 CET).

4. In the application titled Exhibit 'A' appended to their appeals, the appellants have stated that in view of Rule 3 of the Rules for Interpretation of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and because the test reports obtained at the time of clearance did not indicate the percentage of all the ingredients in the product imported and the goods cannot be retested at this stage, they were not pursuing the matter regarding the classification under the Customs Tariff. Shri D.N Gaur, the Consultant who appeared for the appellants at the personal hearing, with Shri S.C. Chopra, their General Manager, also confirmed that the ground regarding classification for the purpose of basic Customs duty in these appeals was not being agitated. Accordingly, the appeals are confined to the question of classification and levy of countervailing (additional) duty with reference to Item 22F of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule.

5. The description in the abovementioned Item 22F as it stood at the relevant time is reproduced below :-

'22F. Mineral Fibres and Yarn, and manufactures therefrom, in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power.

Explanation.-"Mineral fibres and yarn, and manufactures therefrom" shall be deemed to include :-

(i) glass fibre and yarn including glass tissues and glass wool;

(ii) asbestos fibre and yarn ;

(iii) any other mineral fibre or yarn, whether continuous or otherwise such as slag wool and rock wool ; and

(iv) manufactures containing mineral fibre and yarn, other than asbestos cement products.'

The contention of the appellants in brief