1998 (5) TMI 85 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of product "WIPBOARD" under Central Excise Tariff Act

Analysis:
1. Issue: Classification under Central Excise Tariff Act.
- The appellant manufactured "WIPBOARD" and classified it under 4410.90 claiming a 'NIL' rate of duty.
- The department proposed to classify it under 4408.90.
- The Asstt. Collector ordered classification under 4407.90.

2. Analysis:
- The appellant argued for classification under 4407.90, 4410.90, or not under 4408.90.
- The department relied on the decision in the case of M/s. Woodcraft regarding "similar laminated wood."
- The department argued that "WIPBOARD" fell under 4408.90 due to its resemblance to blockboard and similar laminated wood.

3. Analysis:
- The central issue was whether "WIPBOARD" should be classified under 4408.90 or elsewhere.
- The appellant relied on Chapter Note 5 to Chapter 44 CET, while the department relied on the HSN and the case law of M/s. Woodcraft.
- The interpretation of the terms "ply" or "plies" was crucial in determining the classification.

4. Analysis:
- The court examined the definitions of "ply" and "plies" in the HSN to distinguish between wood sheets and hardboard sheets.
- The court emphasized the expansive interpretation of "similar laminated wood" but clarified the necessity of a resemblance to plywood or veneered panels.

5. Analysis:
- The court concluded that "WIPBOARD" did not qualify as laminated wood due to the use of hardboard instead of natural wood sheets.
- The product was deemed an article of wood not elsewhere specified, falling under 4410.90 of CET, 1985.
- The impugned order-in-appeal was set aside, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.