1995 (10) TMI 199 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of wires under Central Excise Headings 7217.90, 7229.90, 7211.91, and 7226.90

In this case, the main issue pertains to the classification of wires manufactured by the appellant company under specific Central Excise Headings. The appellant argued for classification under Heading 7217.90 for non-alloy steel wires and Heading 7229.90 for alloy steel wires, while the department classified them under headings 7211.91 and 7226.90.

The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the goods in question to determine whether they should be classified as wire or flat rolled products. The appellant's representative argued that the raw material used was wire rods, which were processed into wires of lower diameters and then flattened between rolls. The resulting product had round edges and a constant width, which did not meet the criteria of a flat rolled product as per Note 1(k) to Chapter 72.

The department's classification was based on a visual assessment of the product's cross-section, which they deemed to be solid rectangular. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this assessment, stating that visual examination alone is not sufficient to determine the geometrical shape of the product. The Tribunal emphasized the need for precision in classification and rejected the department's argument that the term "rectangular" should not be strictly interpreted.

Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted that the product did not meet the requirements specified in Note (k) to the Chapter for flat rolled products, as it was not in a straight length or coils of successively superimposed layers. The appellant successfully demonstrated that the product was in coils of transverse winding, similar to thread on a spool, which was not rebutted by the department.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the goods should be classified under the headings claimed by the appellant, thereby allowing the appeal. Additionally, a miscellaneous application filed by the appellant for presenting additional evidence was withdrawn and subsequently dismissed.