1995 (3) TMI 219 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the product under the correct heading.
2. Applicability of previous judgments and decisions.
3. Examination of physical characteristics and expert opinions.
4. Consistency in classification across different Collectorates.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of the product under the correct heading:

The main issue revolves around the classification of the product manufactured by the appellants, which are Flat Rolled Products of Iron and Steel. The appellants claimed classification under Chapter Heading 7214.90, while the Department contended that the correct classification should be under Heading 7211.59. The Department's position was based on physical inspection and expert opinion, which indicated that the product had a rectangular cross-section and uneven thickness, classifying it as hot rolled strips of thickness less than 5 mm.

2. Applicability of previous judgments and decisions:

The appellants relied on several previous judgments, including the Tribunal's decision in the case of Calcutta Steel Industries and others, which classified similar products as Bars under different headings for various periods. They argued that these precedents should apply to their case as well. However, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) found these decisions not directly applicable due to differences in the physical characteristics of the products in question.

3. Examination of physical characteristics and expert opinions:

The adjudicating authority examined a sample drawn from the appellants' factory in the presence of their counsel. The sample was found to have a rectangular cross-section with a width of uneven thickness less than 600 mm. The expert opinion from Motilal Nehru Regional Engineering College, Allahabad, supported the Department's view that the product fell within the range of Iron Strip as per IS code No. SP 6(1)-1964. This expert opinion was critical in confirming the classification under Heading 7211.59.

4. Consistency in classification across different Collectorates:

The appellants argued that similar products were being classified under Chapter Heading 7214.90 in other Collectorates, and they provided photocopies of GP1s issued by manufacturers in the Chandigarh Collectorate. However, the Department emphasized that the appellants had not previously claimed such classification in earlier lists, indicating a deliberate attempt to pay a lower duty rate. The Department's consistent classification of the product as Flat Rolled Products under Heading 7211.59 was upheld by the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the product in question should be classified under Chapter Heading 7211.59 based on the physical examination and expert opinion. The appellants' arguments and reliance on previous judgments were found to be inapplicable due to the specific characteristics of the product. The impugned order classifying the product under Heading 7211.59 was upheld, and the appeal was rejected.