1995 (1) TMI 234 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of commercial plywood for shuttering as structural plywood.
2. Eligibility for lower rate of duty under Notification No. 55/79.
3. Interpretation of the term "structural plywood" in the context of the notification.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute over the classification of commercial plywood for shuttering manufactured by the respondents. The Collector of Central Excise, Cochin contended that the plywood should be classified as structural plywood attracting a higher rate of duty. However, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Cannanore Division, after considering the manufacturing process and end-use of the product, classified it as commercial plywood for shuttering under T.I. 16B(ii). The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras upheld this classification, leading to the appeal.

2. The main argument put forth by the Departmental Representative was based on the exclusion clause in Notification No. 55/79, which excluded certain categories, including structural plywood, from the concessional rate of duty meant for commercial plywood. The DR argued that the term "structural plywood" should be interpreted broadly to cover shuttering plywood as well. Reference was made to expert opinions and previous tribunal decisions. However, the respondents' counsel argued that the Department failed to establish with evidence that the commercial shuttering plywood produced was indeed structural plywood.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the manufacturing process of the commercial plywood for shuttering and found that it did not conform to the specifications of concrete shuttering plywood classified as structural plywood. The Tribunal noted the differences in raw material content, technical standards, and end-use between structural plywood and commercial plywood for shuttering. It was observed that the commercial shuttering plywood was distinct from concrete shuttering plywood and was marketed as such. The Tribunal also considered previous decisions, such as Sudarshan Plywood Industries and Alok Udyog Vanaspati and Plywood, which held that shuttering plywood is not structural plywood and is eligible for the concessional rate of duty under Notification 55/79.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming the lower authorities' decision that the commercial shuttering plywood manufactured by the respondents is eligible for the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 55/79 and does not fall under the excluded category of structural plywood. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the commercial usage and material specifications while interpreting such classifications.