1989 (4) TMI 190 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of bare aluminum strips under Tariff Item 27(b) of the Central Excise Tariff.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi concerned the classification of bare aluminum strips manufactured by the appellants as an intermediate product for the ultimate manufacture of paper-covered aluminum conductors under Tariff Item 27(b) of the Central Excise Tariff. The Collector of Central Excise, Patna had previously ruled that the goods fell within the scope of Tariff Item 27(b, and had also determined the value and limited the demand for six months.

The appellants' consultant argued that the product should not be classified as an aluminum strip under Tariff Item 27(b) because it was an aluminum conductor, not meeting the ISI specifications for strips. He contended that in trade parlance, the product was considered an aluminum conductor, not a strip, and referred to the definition of aluminum strips in IS : 5047 (Part 1) -1986. However, he failed to provide evidence of market criteria or demonstrate an alternative classification for the product.

The Departmental Representative argued that previous court decisions and tribunal rulings supported the classification of similar products as strips under Tariff Item 27(b). He emphasized that unless there was ambiguity in the tariff entry, ISI specifications could not be used for assessment purposes. The representative asserted that the term "aluminum strips" in the tariff was comprehensive and covered all types of strips without qualification.

The Tribunal noted that the strips manufactured by the appellants were used in making insulated conductors and were made from electrical grade aluminum. The appellants' argument that their product was a conductor, not a strip, was dismissed as they could not demonstrate an alternative classification or show ambiguity in the tariff entry. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellants themselves described their goods as aluminum bare strips in the classification list, indicating market perception. The Tribunal concluded that the product fell under Tariff Item 27(b) and dismissed the appeal.

In a separate judgment, the Tribunal referenced previous court decisions and tribunal rulings that supported classifying similar products as strips under Tariff Item 27(b. The Tribunal emphasized that even after paper covering, the strips were classified under Section 27(b, and bare strips would fall under the same heading. The appellants' argument that the strips were conductors of electrical grade did not affect their classification under Section 27(b, as they failed to identify an alternative tariff entry for such products. The Tribunal upheld the classification of the goods as aluminum strips under Tariff Item 27(b) and dismissed the appeal.