2017 (7) TMI 487 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - Lead Glass Tubings Flange Tubings & Exhaust Tubings - The contention of the respondent was the same were classifiable under CSH 7008.90 of Schedule to CETA, whereas Revenue claimed that the said products are un-worked and classifiable under Chapter Sub-heading No. 7001.90 - Held that - the respondent had explained that the Lead Glass Tubings for use in Electrical Lamps having to be further processed/by way of annealing, diameter sorting, precise cutting to the specified length and their ends have to be glazed by fire polishing and therefore the tube emerging from such process shall fall under classification under Sub-heading No. 7008.90 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Failure to re-examine goods as directed by Tribunal - Applicability of previous case law - Remand of matter for verification.

Classification of Goods:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the classification of goods like Lead Glass Tubings, Flange Tubings, and Exhaust Tubings under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondent contended that the goods should be classified under CSH 7008.90, while the Original Authority classified them under Sub-heading No.7001.90. The Tribunal had previously directed a re-examination of the goods in question based on the length of the product, following a similar case law. However, the Original Authority did not conduct the re-examination as directed and classified the goods under Sub-heading No.7001.90. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the Original Authority failed to ascertain the necessary information for re-examination, did not establish the applicability of the previous case law, and classified the goods under Sub-heading No.7008.90. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) as reasonable and dismissed the appeal filed by Revenue.

Failure to Re-examine Goods:
The ground of appeal raised by Revenue was that since the Original Authority did not verify the facts as directed by the Tribunal, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have remanded the matter back to the Original Authority for verification. However, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and did not appreciate the argument for remand. The Tribunal upheld the reasoned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) classifying the goods under Sub-heading No.7008.90 and dismissed the appeal by Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the classification of the goods under Sub-heading No.7008.90 as determined by the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appeal filed by Revenue. The Tribunal did not find any fault in the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and declined the request for remand to the Original Authority for verification. The respondent was entitled to consequential relief as per law.