9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1987 (7) TMI 439 - AT - Central Excise
Issues: Classification of M.S. Rivets under Central Excise Tariff
Comprehensive Analysis: Issue 1: Classification of M.S. Rivets under Central Excise Tariff The case involved the classification of M.S. Rivets manufactured by M/s. Eastern Industries under the Central Excise Tariff. The Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta confirmed the duty demand but did not require the respondents to obtain a license or impose any penalty. On appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) accepted the case of the respondents regarding Bright Drawn Bars but held that the rivets, even if made from M.S. rounds by forging process, could no longer be classified as Iron and Steel Products under T.I. 26-AA(ia) and should be classified under Item 68 CET. The appeal was filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta against this order. Issue 2: Interpretation of Manufacturing Process for Rivets The process of manufacturing rivets involved cutting the rod to the required length, die-forging to form the hemispherical head, and finning the other end to form the tapering end. The Department argued that the rivets should be classified under Item 26-AA(ia) CET as a forged shape not otherwise specified. However, the respondents relied on a letter from the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which clarified that shapes and sections would exclude items that had assumed the character of any specified article. It was determined that the rivets, despite being formed by the die-forging process, did not fall within the expression of shapes and sections not otherwise specified due to being distinctly known products with their specific name. Conclusion: The Appellate Tribunal held that the rivets manufactured by M/s. Eastern Industries were properly classifiable under Item 68 CET during the relevant period and not under Item 26-AA(ia). As the appeal was solely related to the order concerning the classification of rivets, it was dismissed based on the conclusion reached regarding the classification issue.
|
