- (1.) The appellant is the same in these sixty-eight appeals, which raise a common point. All the appeals are, therefore, dis- posed of by a common order.
(2.) The common issue raised in this batch of appeals is a simple one: viz. whether the goods in question fall under one or the other of the two headings in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'customs tariff) referred to later.
(3.) The appellant-assessee, as its name indicates, is a manufacturer of dry batteries. For this manufacture, it imports electrolytic manganese dioxide from abroad having a manganese dioxide content of 91 per cent. Its claim is that customs duty is payable on this item under heading 25. 01/32 (3 of the customs tariff. The revenue, on the other hand, says that the item imported falls under heading 28. 01/58 of the customs tariff. It may be mentioned that the rate of duty under both the headings is the same. The only difference is that if the item is classified under the latter heading, as claimed by the department, the assessee will be liable to pay countervailing duty as well whereas, if it is classified under the former, as suggested by the appellant, no countervailing duty will be payable. We shall proceed to refer to the nomenclatures of the relevant entries in the first Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.;