1997 (11) TMI 164 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of slag wool and rock wool under Central Excise Tariff - Interpretation of exemption Notification No. 50/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 - Whether slag wool qualifies for the same exemption as rock wool.

Analysis:

The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of slag wool and rock wool, initially classified these products separately. However, they later submitted a classification list, seeking exemption under Notification No. 50/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986, for both products as mineral fibers. The Department raised concerns about the classification and requested clarification. The Assistant Collector provisionally approved the classification, subject to a show cause notice on why slag wool should not attract duty under a different sub-heading than rock wool. The appellants argued that slag wool and rock wool are synonymous terms based on dictionary definitions and technical literature, thus deserving the same exemption.

In response, the Department contended that the tariff clearly distinguishes between slag wool and rock wool, with the exemption specifically granted to rock wool only. The Department emphasized the strict interpretation of the exemption Notification and the distinct categorization of the two products under the Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal considered the dictionary meanings and technical similarities presented by the appellants but highlighted that the common parlance and tariff terminology differentiate between slag wool and rock wool. The Tribunal emphasized that the exemption was explicitly granted to rock wool, indicating the government's intention to limit the benefit to that specific product.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Department's argument, ruling that the exemption under Notification No. 50/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 applies exclusively to rock wool and not to slag wool. The decision was based on the clear language of the tariff entry and the strict interpretation of the exemption notification. The Tribunal concluded that the benefit of the exemption was intended for rock wool only, thereby rejecting the appeal made by the appellants seeking the same exemption for slag wool.