1998 (12) TMI 194 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of "Grooved Copper Contact Wire in Coils" - Chapter sub-heading 7407.29 vs. Chapter sub-heading 7408.11.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the classification of a product termed as "Grooved Copper Contact Wire in Coils" made of refined copper with grooves exceeding 6 mm in cross-sectional dimension. The Revenue argued for classification under Chapter sub-heading 7407.29 as "other profiles," attracting specific excise duties, while the appellants contended for classification under Chapter sub-heading 7408.11, which would result in different excise duty rates.

The Tribunal noted the definitions of "profiles" and "wire" provided in the chapter notes. Profiles were described as products with a uniform cross-section not falling under specific categories like bars, rods, wire, etc. Wire, on the other hand, was defined as products with a solid cross-section in shapes like circles, ovals, rectangles, etc., with certain thickness limitations. The Tribunal highlighted that the product in question did not fit the defined shapes of wire, as the grooves did not align with the specified shapes.

The lower authorities had determined that the product, due to the grooves altering its shape, did not match the defined shapes for wire classification. The appellants argued based on a specific paragraph in the impugned order mentioning the product's cross-section as a square with grooves. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this interpretation, emphasizing that the presence of grooves did not change the fundamental shape classification. The Tribunal concluded that the product should be classified as "other profiles" under Tariff Heading 7407.29, not as wire under Tariff Heading 7408.11.

Additionally, the Tribunal rejected arguments related to commercial nomenclature, essential character, and ISI standards, asserting that statutory definitions in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, were crucial for classification. As no other points were raised by the appellants, the appeal was dismissed based on the classification issue discussed above.