Per G.R. Sharama :

Appeal No. E/2808/87-D arises out of findings of the lower authorities holding that re-assessment of the goods in dispute under T.I. 25 of the erstwhile CET is untenable and therefore rejected the refund claim. Appeal No. 2809/87-D arises because of rejection of refund claim of the appellants on the ground that the goods are not classifiable under sub-heading 7212.00 but are correctly classifiable under sub-heading 8474.00 of the CETA, 1985. Since the issue for determination in both the appeals is the same namely classification of the product in dispute therefore they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of asbestos cement product manufacturing machinery and components and parts thereof. In appeal No. 2808/87-D the appellants contended that they need not pay duty on corrugated steel sheets, as the same answers tariff description of sheets falling under T.I.25 in terms of explanation xviii to T.I.25 after 17.3.85 due to change in the tariff description of sheets in the Budget of 1985. The appellants also contended that whatever duty they had paid on corrugated template sheets under T.I. 68 after 29.4.85 need be refunded to them.

3. The department alleged that corrugated steel sheets in question are in fact template for the manufacture of asbestos cement sheets; that raw paste or mixture of asbestos fiber is pressed between two templates in the machine when corrugated abestos cement sheet is formed and alleged that templates which have been described as corrugated steel sheets are in fact identifiable parts of asbestos cement product manufacturing machinery; that it has lost its identity as plain steel sheets classifiable under T.I. 25 upto 28.2.86 and under sub-heading 7212 from 1.3.86 and has acquired identity of distinguishable components /parts of the asbestos cement product manufacturing machinery and is correctly classifiable under T.I. 68 upto 28.2.86 and under sub-heading 8474.00 from 1.3.86. Accordingly show cause notices were issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why the product in dispute should not be classified under T.I. 68 upto 28.2.86 and under sub-heading 8474.00 from 1.3.86 and why refund claims should not be rejected.

4. Shri A.K. Ganguly, Senior Advocate with Shri V.J. Sankaram appeared for the appellants and Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR for the respondent Commissioner.

5. Shri Ganguly, Senior Advocate explaining the facts of the case submitted that the appellants imported "Hot Rolled Steel Sheets"; that sheets were trimmed by cutting; that the excess edges/sides are trimmed; that manufactured plain asbestos cement sheets is merely placed on a steel sheet of similar size for being carried to the drying chamber stacked one over the other with a steel sheet interspersed; that manufacturing of the asbestos sheets was complete before use of steel sheets; that for manufacturing of corrugated asbestos sheets corrugation box is used; that corrugation is not done by corrugated steel sheets but by vacuumatic process in the corrugation box; that by means of rollers fixed in the box corrugation is provided to the wet plain asbestos cement sheets; that the same are put on a machine by name Press Brake and the sheets were merely corrugated without improving the quality or strength or basic properties of the sheet. It was also argued that these corrugated sheets are not subjected to any further process either by mechanical or by human power; that tariff entry during the material period was under chapter 25. It was also contended by the appellants that these sheets whether corrugated sheets or plain are known as template; that these sheets are fitted in corrugation box; that corrugation box operates with the help of vaccum and pattern of the sheets to be made whether flat or corrugated is done; that corrugation box holds on the template by moving side-ways etc. It was contended by the appellants that these pro