2006 (6) TMI 297 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over classification of scrap as sheets for duty liability.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the classification of scrap cleared by the respondents engaged in the manufacture of cold rolled sheets. The Revenue contended that the scrap, including cut length and end cuttings, should be classified as C.R. and H.R. sheets, thus attracting duty liability. The Revenue relied on statements from customers, like Shri Mohinder Turkhiya, stating that the goods received as waste and scrap were used in manufacturing trunk and almirahs.

In response, the respondents, in their Cross-objections, presented the cross-examination of Mahendra Turkhiya and other buyers. The buyers testified that the goods received were of uneven gauge, had bubbles, waves, holes, and were not in uniform shape, making them suitable for further manufacturing by putting various pieces together. Consequently, the buyers' statements indicated that the received goods were not standard H.R. coils/C.R. coils. The Tribunal found merit in the respondents' argument based on the buyers' testimonies, ruling that the goods cannot be classified as sheets for duty liability purposes. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the Cross-objections were also disposed of accordingly.

This judgment highlights the importance of considering the actual characteristics and usage of goods in determining their classification for duty liability, as demonstrated by the buyers' testimonies regarding the uneven nature of the received goods and their suitability for further manufacturing processes. The Tribunal's decision underscores the significance of factual evidence in resolving disputes over the classification of goods under customs and excise laws.