1999 (2) TMI 149 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification under Central Excise Tariff, Interpretation of Notification No. 53/88-C.E., Additional evidence under Rule 23 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

Classification under Central Excise Tariff:
The case involved a dispute over the classification of pipes under the Central Excise Tariff. The respondents claimed classification under sub-heading 3917.00 of the Central Excise Tariff, seeking the benefit of Notification No. 53/88-C.E. The Assistant Collector disallowed the benefit, classifying the pipes under a different sub-heading. The Collector of Central Excise, in the impugned order, allowed the appeal, determining that the pipes were composite articles made of resins and fiber glass and not multilayer plastic laminates tubes as argued by the Revenue.

Interpretation of Notification No. 53/88-C.E.:
The main dispute in the case revolved around the interpretation of Notification No. 53/88-C.E. The Revenue contended that the pipes were multilayer laminate tubes covered by a specific clause of the notification, while the respondents argued that the pipes did not fall under that category and were covered by a different clause. The Tribunal examined the manufacturing process provided by the respondents and found no evidence presented by the Revenue to support their claim that the pipes were multilayer plastic laminated tubes.

Additional evidence under Rule 23 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982:
The respondents sought to introduce additional evidence in the form of expert opinions obtained from officers of the Indian Institute of Technology. The expert opinions were not before the lower authorities and were obtained without the Revenue's knowledge. The Tribunal rejected the application under Rule 23, citing that the expert opinions were not clear, and the identity of the goods sent for opinion was not established, as the letter from the respondents, on which the opinions were based, was not on record.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal and disposing of the cross-objections filed by the respondents. The decision was based on the lack of evidence presented by the Revenue to support their classification of the pipes as multilayer plastic laminated tubes, as opposed to the respondents' claim that the pipes were composite articles made of resins and fiber glass.