Judgment :- The prayer in W.P. No. 11316 of 1981 runs as follows :- "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari-fied-Mandamus, calling for the records, ending with the order of the Appellate Collector No. C3/2209/81 dated 9.9.1981, quashing the same and direct the refund of duty of Rs. 2, 69, 404.20 paid in excess of the customs duty and additional duty at the rate of 8% and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice." 2.The prayer in W.P. No. 11317 of 1981 runs as follows :- " For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is respect fully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari-fied-Mandamus calling for the records ending with the order of the Appellate Collector C.3/2209/81 dated 9-9-1981 quashing the same and direct the refund of duty of Rs. 89, 349 paid in excess of the customs duty and additional duty at the rate of 8% and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice." * 3.The customs duty and additional duty referred to in the prayers in the writ petitions were in respect of brass scraps imported by the petitioners. The authorities went to bring the brass scraps imported by the petitioners for purposes of additional duty under the heading 'copper' - Item 26A(i) of the Central Excise Tariff. Though a contention has been raised by the petitioners in the writ petitions that 'brass scraps' could not come within the category of 'copper', yet in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court inKhandelwal Metal and Engineering Works, v.Union of India 1985 AIR(SC) 1211, 1985 CrLR(SC) 462, 1985 ECR 2571, 1985 (1) Scale 1073, 1985 (3) SCC 620 , 1985 (S1) SCR 750, 1985 CRLR 462, 1985 (20) ELT 222 , 1985 TaxLR 2556, 1985 SCC(Tax) 466 (SC) = 1985 AIR(SC) 1211, 1985 CrLR(SC) 462, 1985 ECR 2571, 1985 (1) Scale 1073, 1985 (3) SCC 620 , 1985 (S1) SCR 750, 1985 CRLR 462, 1985 (20) ELT 222 , 1985 TaxLR 2556, 1985 SCC(Tax) 466] discountenancing such a theory, this contention has not been pressed forth by Mr. Habibullah Badsha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Habibullah Badsha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel is more on the question of the levy of additional duty, invoking Item 26-A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff. Clause 1b of Item 26-A of the Central Excise Tariff bringing in "waste and scrap", was introduced with effect from 1-3-1981 and its vires has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the above pronouncement. But the imports made by the petitioners in the present cases were anterior to the introduction of Clause 1(b) of Item 26-A. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the levy of additional duty invoking clause of Item 26A cannot be sustained in the instant case. Item 26-A prior to the introduction of Clause 1b as well as Explanation II read as follows :- Hence, apparently, only on and after the introduction of clause 1(b) in item 26-A, 'waste and scrap' become liable to additional duty under the formula of Item 26-A and not anterior to that. But, Mr. P. Narasimhan, learned Senior Government Standing Counsel, representing the respondents, would submit that 'scrap' would certainly come within the ambit of 'crude', occurring in clause 1 of Item 26-A. 4.It is impossible to equate 'scrap with 'crude'. 'Scrap' is something which gets eliminated in the course of and after the completion of a product. The raw material for the product could not be a crude. The raw material for the product must have got crystalised into the ultimate substance, after the crude gets processed for that purpose. In contrast, crude is a substance in its natural unprocessed state, not altered or prepared for direct use in the making of any product by any process. Out of the crude, the raw material must come, which go to make up the product and in the course of making up of the product out of that raw material fragments discarded and left over things are called 'scrap'. Hence, it is not possible to state that scrap would fall within 'crude' envisaged in clause 1 of Item 26-A. Hence, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the imports in the present case of brass scraps were anterior to the introduction of clause 1(b) into Item 26-A, the brass scraps imported by the petitioners could not suffer any additional duty relatable to Item 26-A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff has got to be accepted. Yet, as rightly contended by Mr. P. Narasimhan, learned Senior Government Standing Counsel, the residuary Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff may be attracted. This stand is not being disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the said circumstances, the levy of the basic customs duty has got to be upheld and only the levy of the additional duty relatable to Item 26-A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff has got to be discountenanced, and since additional duty could be levied, invoking the residuary Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, the matter requires re-examination by the first authority, who is the third respondent in both the writ petitions. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed and the matter will stand remitted to the file of the third respondent, to quantify the additional duty relatable to Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and refund the excess duty, if any, after such quantification. The third respondent is directed to do so within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of copy of this order. No costs.