Per Shiben K. Dhar :

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 9.1.89 of Collector of Customs (Appeals). The appellants imported a consignment of dumate wire and claimed exemption under Notification 345/86 which allows exemption in case of dumate wire if used in the manufacture of glass to metal seal. The claim was rejected by Asstt. Collector on the ground that appellants are registered for manufacture of lead in wire and that lead in wire and glass to metal seal are two different commodities. Collector (Appeals) upheld the order.

2. Arguing for the appellants the Ld. Advocate submits that Notification 345/86 grants exemption subject to the condition that in respect of impugned goods "an Officer not below the rank of Joint Director in the Directorate of Industries of the Government of the State or such other specified officer certifies that the goods in question are required for the purpose specified in the Notification and the Importer executes a Bond binding himself to pay on demand duty in respect of such goods if it is proved that goods have not been used for the purpose specified in the Notification. Once this certificate is produced the Officer has to accept it.

2.2 Secondly, he submits that in an earlier Order, Collector (Appeals) in his Order dated 17.12.87 placed at Page-44 of the Appeal Papers held that "Lead in Wire" is nothing but "Glass to Metal Seals".

3. He also draws our attention to a number of certificates from leading manufacturers of the impugned goods indicating that in common parlance 'lead in wire' and 'glass to metal seal' are the same. The exemption, therefore, cannot be denied since Notification does not refer to direct use of this raw material.

4. Ld. D.R. submits that intention of Notification is to grant exemption to electronic items and since the product is used in a lamp, it cannot be given exemption. While reiterating departmental arguments, he submits that the importer who claimed to be actual manufacturer was licensed for manufacture of only 'lead in wire', and therefore, could not be given exemption.

5. We have heard both sides. Asstt. Collector has referred to two certificates produced before him. In the certificate dated 14th July, 1986, General Manager, District Industries, has certified that unit is eligible for concessional rate of duty for dumate wire as per Notification 345/86 dated 16.6.86. This certificate also indicates that dumate wire is raw material of lead in wire used in the manufacture of electric and auto bulbs. Certificate dated 23rd July, 1986 again indicates that the unit is an actual user of dumate wire and dumate wire is raw material of lead in wire used for "Glass to Metal Seal". It is this later certificate dated 23rd July, 1986, which appears to have created confusion. The Asstt. Collector relying on this certificate has held that "it can be concluded beyond doubt that the imported dumate wire would be used for the manufacture of lead in wire for which only the unit has been given licence. Asstt. Collector, however, has recorded that these manufactured products, that is, lead-in-wire are used in turn for making of glass to metal seal for lamp and bulb industry.

6. At Page 56 of the Appeal Papers there is a certificate from Elcom Pvt. Ltd. certifying that "In our normal trade parlance the Glass-to-Metal Seal produced by us is called Lead-in-Wires, but we confirm that both are one and the same". Similarly at Page-58, we find a certificate from Fluo-Lite Pvt. Ltd. dated 13.4.89 certifying that in normal trade parlance "glass-to-metal seal" is called `lead in wire' and the both are the same."

7. Literature placed at Annexure-XIII in the appeal papers indicates :

"The wires used in the glass sealing portion of lead-in wires must be of suitable materials having co-efficients of expansion to match those of the glasses being used, otherwise serious problems due to cracking or leaking may occur.

Dumet - a copper clad nickel iron wire used in most lamp making applicatio