1989 (1) TMI 254 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of shuttering plywood as structural plywood for excise duty purposes.

Analysis:
The appeal revolved around determining whether the shuttering plywood manufactured by the respondent was to be classified as structural plywood, impacting the excise duty applicable under Notification 55/79. The respondent initially claimed the benefit of the notification for commercial plywood but faced a show cause notice questioning this classification. The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) ruled in favor of the respondent, prompting an appeal by the appellant-Collector.

The appellant argued that the respondent's advertisement referred to the product as structural plywood, emphasizing its use in constructing concrete structures. They contended that the plywood's characteristics, including being preservative treated and durable under wet conditions, aligned with structural plywood standards. The appellant relied on dictionary definitions to support their stance, interpreting "structural plywood" broadly to encompass plywood used in building structures.

In response, the respondent highlighted distinct Indian Standard Specifications for shuttering plywood and structural plywood, citing IS 10701-1983 and IS 4990-1981, respectively. They rejected the reliance on dictionary definitions, citing a Supreme Court ruling cautioning against such reliance and emphasizing the importance of IS specifications in determining product classification. They also referenced a Calcutta High Court judgment supporting the significance of ISI specifications in trade and commerce.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal, siding with the respondent. They noted that the advertisement did not explicitly label the plywood as structural plywood and emphasized the existence of separate ISI specifications for shuttering and structural plywood. The tribunal concurred with the respondent's argument that dictionary definitions were not definitive in trade parlance determination, aligning with the precedents cited regarding the importance of IS specifications in classifying products. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, affirming the distinction between shuttering plywood and structural plywood in commercial and trade contexts.