COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. CALCUTTA STEEL INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are appeals from the decision of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi thereinafter referred to as 'CEGAT' under Section 35D (b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The respondent Calcutta Steel Industries filed revised classification lists wherein they had classified all rectangular products of thickness below 3.0 mm manufactured by them us bars covered by Tariff item 26AA (ia) of the Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise was of the tentative view that rectangular products of thickness less than 3.0 mm and of width less than 75 mm conform to the definition of Hoops and merit classification under item (ii) of Tariff Item 26AA attracting effective rate of duty of Rs. 450/- per MT less the reduction provided for Under Notification No. 55/80 dated 13th May, 1980. The respondents were, therefore, called upon to show cause as to why the classification list should not be amended and duty charged accordingly. The respondents submitted their written statement and requested for a personal hearing. The matter came up for adjudication before the Assistant Collector, Central Excise. He held inter alia that the type of Mills used for the manufacture was irrelevant. He relied on the definition of "Hoops" evolved in consultation with the Ministry of Steel and the Indian Standard Institution. The revised definition was as follows:-

(2.) The Assistant Collector, Central Excise on the basis of certain discussion, in his order, was of the view that rectangular products of thickness less than 3.0 mm and width less than 75 mm were hoops and were correctly classified under sub-item (ii) of Tariff item 26AA of the Central Excise Tariff and accordingly exigible to the appropriate duty. The revised classification list was accordingly modified and approved. The respondents preferred appeals to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The Collector considered the Indian Standard 1950-62 (2nd reprint May 1975) which defined "Hoops" as follows:

(3.) He accordingly held that this definition showed that the edges of the product in question might be sheared or unsheared and tile products might be in straight lengths or in coils. He also held that the nature or type of width cannot by itself be tile determining factor of the issue in dispute which has to be determined taking into account all relevant considerations, viz., the phraseology and the scope of the Tariff Entry, the trade practice terminology, well-recognised standard national and international technical literature. In the result, the Appellate Collector of Central Excise inter alia for the reasons stated above, found no reasons to interfere with the order of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise which was accordingly upheld.