1997 (11) TMI 307 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods - Runners and Risers under Tariff Item 25 (6)(ii) or Tariff Item 25 (3)(ii)

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Calcutta involved the classification of goods, specifically Runners and Risers, under Tariff Item 25 (6)(ii) or Tariff Item 25 (3)(ii). The appellant, a manufacturer of iron and steel products, had submitted Classification Lists describing the goods as Runners and Risers under different tariff items. The Revenue contended that the goods were cleared at an incorrect duty rate, leading to a demand for differential duty. The authorities below upheld the demand, classifying Runners and Risers under Tariff Heading 7203.20. The appellant argued that Runners and Risers could be of two types: fit for rolling or fit for melting, as recognized by the Assistant Commissioner in approving the Classification Lists. The appellant cited the Tribunal's decision in a similar case, emphasizing the distinction between the two types of goods. The Revenue, however, relied on previous Tribunal judgments to support the classification of Runners and Risers as melting scrap.

The Appellate Tribunal analyzed the submissions and previous judgments, noting that the Tribunal's earlier decisions did not consider the distinction between Runners and Risers fit for rolling and those fit for melting. The Tribunal observed that the Assistant Commissioner had recognized this distinction while approving the Classification Lists. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the classification and demand of duty based solely on the Commissioner (Appeals) observations in an Order-in-Appeal were not justified. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the specific approval of the Classification Lists and the absence of evidence that the goods were not fit for rolling. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, providing relief to the appellants.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issue of classifying goods, specifically Runners and Risers, under different tariff items based on their suitability for rolling or melting. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of recognizing the distinctions between the types of goods and upheld the specific approval of the Classification Lists by the Assistant Commissioner. The decision highlighted the need for proper consideration of the characteristics of the goods in question rather than relying solely on previous observations or judgments for classification and duty determination.