9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of "HSK-4 Electric Resistance Wire" under Heading 73.15 (1) or 73.15 (2), C.T.A. 2. Determination of the appropriate heading for assessment and consequential refund claims. 3. Condonation of delay in filing Supplementary Appeals. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Classification of "HSK-4 Electric Resistance Wire" under Heading 73.15 (1) or 73.15 (2), C.T.A. The primary issue in this case revolves around the classification of "HSK-4 Electric Resistance Wire." The goods were initially assessed as stainless steel wire under Heading 73.15 (2) read with Notification No. 259/82. However, the respondents claimed assessments under Heading 73.15 (1) read with Notification No. 112 dated 16-4-1982. The Collector (Appeals) determined that the aluminium content in the wire was 3.43%, which exceeded the ISI 6525-1972 specification for stainless steel wire, which allows a maximum aluminium content of 0.03%. Consequently, the wire did not conform to ISI specifications for stainless steel wire and was classified under Heading 73.15 (1) C.T.A. The department argued that the wire contained 20.03% Chromium, which is covered by the definition of stainless steel in ISI and Para 242 (2) (v) of the ITC policy book 1983-84. They contended that the addition of aluminium alone should not determine whether it is stainless steel or not, as the universal definition does not exclude any alloying element and merely prescribes the minimum chromium content. Issue 2: Determination of the Appropriate Heading for Assessment and Consequential Refund Claims The Collector (Appeals) emphasized the aluminium content, stating that the wire did not meet the ISI specifications for stainless steel wire due to its high aluminium content. The department, however, stressed that the chromium content should be the determining factor, citing that alloy steel containing over 12% chromium is considered stainless steel according to ISI Specification IS: 1956: 1976. The Tribunal referred to the CCCN Explanatory Notes and determined that the essential character of the wire, given its use as an electric resistance wire, should be considered. The Tribunal found that the aluminium content, which exceeded the ISI specification for stainless steel wire, was a critical factor in its classification. Therefore, adopting Rule 3(b) of the interpretative rules, the classification under Chapter heading 73.15 (1) was deemed more appropriate. Issue 3: Condonation of Delay in Filing Supplementary Appeals The appellants filed Supplementary Appeals along with requests for condonation of delay. Since the main appeals were filed within the stipulated time, the delay in filing the Supplementary Appeals was condoned. The Tribunal allowed the appeals for condonation of delay. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the classification of the "HSK-4 Electric Resistance Wire" under Chapter Heading 73.15 (1) and dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The emphasis was placed on the aluminium content exceeding the ISI specifications for stainless steel wire, thereby justifying the classification under Heading 73.15 (1). The appeals for condonation of delay were allowed.
|
