1991 (2) TMI 238 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of products under Tariff Item 68 vs. Tariff Item 25(16)

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved a dispute regarding the classification of products manufactured by the respondents under Tariff Item 68 as opposed to Tariff Item 25(16) as castings of Iron and Steel. The respondents sought classification under Tariff Item 25(16) claiming exemption under Notification 208/83 as galvanized cast iron pipe fittings and malleable iron castings. The Assistant Collector held that after undergoing various processes like Tumblasting, annealing, galvanizing, and threading, the products no longer retained the characteristics of castings and should be classified under Tariff Item 68. However, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) ruled in favor of the respondent, citing a previous Tribunal decision that cutting and threading of seamless steel tubes did not create a new product. The appellants argued that the facts of the present case were different from the referenced case and that the products had transformed into pipe fittings after the processes, no longer being castings.

The Department argued that the products were castings that were threaded and no longer retained their original form, thus should be classified under Tariff Item 68. They distinguished the case from previous decisions where pipe fittings were made from pipes. The Senior Counsel for the respondent referenced Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions stating that pipe fittings should be classified under Tariff Item 26AA(iv) or 25(15) and not under Tariff Item 68. The Assistant Collector's order treated the products as pipe fittings, emphasizing that the manner of manufacturing the fittings was not the determining factor for classification.

The Tribunal analyzed the relevant Tariff Items and previous decisions, concluding that the products in question, even after undergoing processes like galvanizing and threading, were still considered pipe fittings and should be classified under Tariff Item 26AA(iv) or 25(15) rather than the residuary Tariff Item 68. The Tribunal highlighted that the end-use and manufacturing process should not solely determine classification under the Central Excise Tariff. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the classification of the products as pipe fittings under the specified Tariff Items.