1994 (6) TMI 67 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under Tariff Item 33B(i) or 33B(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff.

In the present case, the appellants declared certain goods under Tariff Item 33B(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff, while the lower authorities classified them under Item 33B(i). The dispute arose due to the sectional area of the aluminum wire being 2.55 mm2, slightly exceeding the 2.5 square millimeters limit specified under Item 33B(i). The lower appellate authority confirmed the classification under 33B(i) despite acknowledging the factual discrepancy. The appellants contended that the lower authority's decision was erroneous and relied on a judgment from the Kerala High Court to support their argument that no rounding off should be applied in such cases. The Revenue also struggled to defend the impugned order due to the factual finding. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and legal arguments, found that the goods should be classified under Tariff Item 33B(ii) based on the Collector's finding that the sectional area exceeded 2.5 square millimeters. The Tribunal criticized the lower authorities for their non-application of mind and a biased attitude towards the appellants' case, recommending further action to address such behavior.

This judgment primarily deals with the correct classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff, specifically whether the goods should be classified under Tariff Item 33B(i) or 33B(ii) based on the sectional area of the aluminum wire. The Tribunal's decision highlights the importance of factual accuracy and proper application of statutory provisions in determining the appropriate tariff classification. It also emphasizes the need for fair and unbiased decision-making by lower authorities in tax matters, recommending corrective action to address any instances of bias or non-application of mind.