PER S.L. PEERAN :

In these batch of appeals, common question of law and facts are involved, hence they are all taken up together for disposal as per law.

2. The Revenue is the aggrieved party and they have filed appeal against the respective orders of the Collector (Appeals). The respondents had imported "Heat Resisting Steel Sheets in Coils" which has been so described in the case of Gemini Metals, Mithuna Industries, while in the case of New India Industries, the goods had been described as "Stainless Steel in Coils". The dispute is regarding the assessment of these items in the erstwhile Tariff and as to whether they fall under Item 63 (14) as Iron or Steel hoops and strips, not otherwise specified of Indian Customs Tariff or under Item 63 (20A) of the said Tariff as Stainless Steel Sheets and as to whether they are entitled for the concessional rate of benefit in terms of Notification No. 118/65 dt. 20.8.65 as amended, which grants concessional rate of benefit to `Cold Rolled hoops and strips of stainless steel of 250 mm width or more falling under Item 63 (14) of ICT are exempted from the payment of

i. so much of that portion of customs duty leviable thereon under Indian Tariff Act, 1934 as an excess of 10% ad valorem where standard rate of duty is leviable and

ii. the whole of the duty of Customs leviable thereon under Indian Tariff Act, 1934 where the preferential rate of duty is leviable.

3. In the present case the Learned DR has prepared a chart setting out the appeal numbers, Bill Respondent, Bill of Entry No. Date, Description as per invoice/Bill of entry, Specification/Thickness/Width. The same is annexed to this order as annexure.

4. The respondents/importers had preferred a refund claim on the ground that the goods are correctly classifiable under Item 63 (14) of ICT. The refund claims were rejected on merits as well as on time bar as the claims had been preferred after the statutory period of 6 months prescribed under Section 27 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The importers preferred writ petition to the Delhi High Court. The Hon'ble High Court directed the Assistant Collector to consider the issue on merit in accordance with law and pass the appropriate orders in the light of its order. The Assistant Collector considered the issue de novo on merits and rejected the respondents' contention for classification under Item 63 (14) of ICT. They preferred the appeal before the Collector, who on consideration held that in the light of ISI definition of 'strips' the goods have to be considered as 'strips'. He also referred to an order No. 232 to 244B/82 of 1982 passed by the Government of India, wherein an identical issue had been dealt with. In the said decision, the Government of India had observed that in a situation where there is no statutory definition of the terms "Sheets" and "Strips", it would be reasonable to accept the ISI definition of the said terms as providing such criteria. The Learned Collector held that the Government of India did not recognise the position that stainless steel strips could be of a width more than 250 mm. He has also held that there is no indication in the invoice that the goods were cold rolled. He accepted the inspection certificate produced by the respondents to show that the goods are cold rolled products only. He accepted the contention of the importers that the hot rolled products were semi-finished and were made into sheets/strips by cold rolling as was being done by M/s. Salem Steel Plant. He further accepted the contention that hot rolled products were thicker and could not be used by the ultimate consumer and the same could have very little gloss or surface smoothness. Gloss and surface smoothness are attained only if the hot rolled products are passed several times through cold rolling mills. The further contention was also accepted by the Collector that they have imported only cold rolled products, which could straightaway be used for making utensils and other consumer