2000 (12) TMI 390 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of goods for the purpose of refund of duty under Rule 173L (3) (iii) of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the classification of Aluminium ingots and Aluminium sheets for the purpose of refund of duty under Rule 173L (3) (iii) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Revenue argued that Aluminium sheets and ingots are different items classifiable under distinct tariff headings, indicating they do not belong to the same class of goods. On the contrary, the Respondent contended that previous Tribunal decisions, such as the Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. case, established that goods like aluminium foils and extrusions can be considered of the same class despite being classifiable under different tariff headings. The Respondent also referred to the interpretation of the term "class" in previous cases to support their argument.

The Tribunal examined the meaning of the term "class" in the context of Rule 173L (3) (iii) based on previous decisions. It was noted that the term "class" was interpreted broadly to encompass goods with common attributes or characteristics, even if they are classified under different tariff headings. Citing the case of CCE v. Orissa Cement Ltd, the Tribunal emphasized that goods like fire bricks and mortar were considered to belong to the same class despite being classified under the same Tariff Item. The Tribunal concluded that the decisions and interpretations provided by the Respondent aligned with the broader understanding of the term "class" and, therefore, upheld the Order-in-Appeal, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

In summary, the judgment focused on the classification of goods for the purpose of refund of duty under Rule 173L (3) (iii) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal considered previous decisions and interpretations to establish that goods with common attributes or characteristics can be deemed to belong to the same class, even if they are classified under different tariff headings. The Respondent's arguments were supported by previous Tribunal decisions and the broader interpretation of the term "class," leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal and upholding of the Order-in-Appeal.