2000 (2) TMI 350 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff - Whether plastic pipe fittings are classifiable under Heading 3925.19 as builders ware or Heading 3917.00.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai involved the classification of goods manufactured by the appellant as pipe fittings of plastic under the Central Excise Tariff. The primary issue was whether these goods should be classified under Heading 3925.19 as builders ware, as determined by the Collector, or under Heading 3917.00, which would entitle them to exemption from duty under specific notifications.

The appellant relied on a previous Tribunal decision in Supreme Industries v. C.C.E., Aurangabad, where similar goods were classified under Heading 39.17. This decision was crucial in the appellant's argument for a different classification.

On the other hand, the departmental representative supported the Collector's finding that the pipes manufactured by the appellant were fittings for gutters, based on their common usage for soil removal, rainwater drainage, and connection to gutters as per Indian Standard Specifications No. IS 1626 VII of 1984.

The Tribunal noted that the Collector's order lacked substantial reasoning for classifying the goods as fittings for gutters. The appellant's argument that gutters are open at the top, unlike enclosed pipes, was considered reasonable and supported by Indian Standard specifications and catalog references. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between pipes and gutters, rejecting the idea that fittings connecting a pipe to a gutter should be considered fittings for gutters.

An additional point raised was that even if the pipes were functionally considered gutters, the fittings of the pipes should not be classified under Heading 39.25 as they were already covered under Heading 39.17. The Tribunal referred to Note 11 to Chapter 39 of the tariff, which specifies that Heading 39.25 applies only to articles not covered in earlier headings, leading to the conclusion that the demand for duty was not maintainable.

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and granted consequential relief to the appellant based on the detailed analysis and classification principles applied during the judgment.