C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 7/MP/97, dated 30-1-97 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat. Under the impugned order the Commissioner held that the Grinding Media Steel Balls manufactured by the appellants were classifiable under Tariff Item 8482 as against the original classification under 7326.90. Consequently, a duty demand of about Rs. 3 lakhs was confirmed and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed.

2. When the appeal came up for hearing none represented the appellant, despite notice. No communication has also been received from the appellant. Accordingly, we proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned SDR. The classification order of the Commissioner is based on Note 6 to Chapter 84 of Central Excise Tariff. That note reads as under :-

"6. Heading No. 84.82 applies, inter alia, to polished steel balls, the maximum and minimum diameters of which do not differ from the nominal diameter by more than 1% or by more than 0.05 mm, whichever is less. Other steel balls are to be classified in Heading No. 73.26".

3. The Commissioner has relied on the report of the Chemist which stated that the samples of the Grinding Media Balls in question conformed to the norm stipulated in the aforesaid Note 6 to Chapter 84. Para 22 of the impugned order reads :-

"22. Report of the Chemical test of samples of the disputed product given by the Chief Chemist, C.R.C.L., New Delhi, reads as under :-

"Each of the 10 samples contain polished steel balls Maximum and Minimum diameters determined in each ball do not differ from the nominal diameter by more than 1% or by more than 0.05 mm whichever is less and thereby satisfy the condition specified (From 11/89-90 of Test Report)"

The above report very specifically states that each of the samples satisfy the condition laid down in Note 6 of Chapter 84 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Therefore, it is evident that the disputed product would definitely fall under S.H. 8482.00 and the Company should have paid Central Excise duty @ 20% Adv. (Basic) instead of @ 15% Adv. paid by them".

4. The appellants have contested the finding in the impugned order on the ground that the Grinding Media Balls in question are not used in ball or roller bearings. They have also contended that whether the balls are polished or not is not relevant.

5. We find that this Tribunal has already held that Polished Steel Balls conforming to the norms stated in Note 6 of Chapter 84 would be classifiable under Chapter 84.82 [Pratap Engineering Works v. CCE, Jaipur, 1995 (78) E.L.T. 472].

6. The test report of the Chemical Examiner has held that the goods manufactured by the appellant satisfy the specifications in Chapter 84. Therefore, the challenge to the classification made in the impugned order has to fail.

7. We also do not find any infirmity in the demand being made by invoking the extended period provided in proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act inasmuch as the original classification had been obtained by declaring that the Grinding Media Balls in question did not conform to Note 6 to Heading 84.82. It had been specifically declared that "the maximum and minimum diameters differ more than 1% or by more than 0.05 mm". The test report has revealed that these statements were deliberate misstatements.

8. In view of what has been stated above, we find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly rejected.