1987 (4) TMI 209 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under TI 68 CET or TI 51A(iii) CET

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the proper classification of tool bits manufactured by M/s. S.S. Miranda Ltd. The Assistant Collector initially classified the goods under TI 51A(iii) CET, but the Appellate Collector reclassified them under TI 68 CET based on a previous order related to similar goods from another company, M/s. Indian Tools Manufacturing Ltd.

2. The Central Government issued a notice under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act challenging the Appellate Collector's decision. The respondents supported the Appellate Collector's classification, arguing that their product, like that of M/s. Indian Tools Manufacturing Ltd., consisted of blanks that required further processing before being usable as tool bits.

3. The respondents contended that their goods were identical to those of M/s. Indian Tools Manufacturing Ltd., and provided evidence that the purchased blanks needed additional processing like grinding and sharpening before becoming tool bits. The Assistant Collector, however, maintained the classification under TI 51A(iii) CET, claiming that the required processing was minor and did not change the classification.

4. The Appellate Collector's order specified that only tool blanks not ready for use without further processing should be classified under TI 68 CET. The respondents argued that their goods were similar to those of M/s. Indian Tools Manufacturing Ltd., and were also paying duty under TI 51A(iii) CET for ready-to-use tool bits.

5. The Tribunal noted that previous disputes involving carbide blanks had been classified under TI 68 CET, emphasizing that blanks requiring additional processing fell under this classification. Considering the similarities with the previous case, the Tribunal upheld the Appellate Collector's decision to classify the respondents' goods under TI 68 CET.

6. The Tribunal concluded that the order of the Appellate Collector was appropriate, as the respondents' goods were akin to blanks requiring further processing before being considered tool bits. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the notice challenging the classification was discharged.