9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (4) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessable under Tariff Item 27(b) of the Central Excise Tariff or not. 2. The learned Collector, after taking into consideration the pleas of the appellants, has held that the goods squarely fell within the ambit of Tariff Item 27(b) applicable at the relevant time. The Tariff entry 27(b), for convenience of reference, is reproduced below: 27(b) - Manufactures, the following, namely, plates, sheets, circles, strips, shapes and sections, in any form or size, not otherwise specified. The learned Collector has also ruled as to the basis of the value to be adopted and has restricted the demand for six months. 3. The learned Consultant, for the appellants, at the time of hearing, made his submissions only in respect of the classifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufactured by the appellants was not as per ISI specification could not be considered as an aluminum strip falling under Tariff Item 27(b) CET. On a query from the Bench, he stated that the goods to look at, appears to be strips but he stressed that in the market these were not known as aluminum strips but as conductors. He, however, conceded that no evidence in regard to the market criteria was produced before the lower authority nor it has been adduced in the appeal before us. He pleaded that strip as defined in ISI could alone be taken as strip and that should be taken as indicative of the market criteria. 9. The learned Departmental Representative for the Department pleaded that the goods were covered by a decision of the Bombay H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of T.I. 27(b). The learned Consultant has not been able to show as to how the scope of the entry in the tariff could be restricted by the definition of the term strip as given in the ISI. He has conceded that to look at their product, appears as a strip. He has also not been able to show as in case the product cannot be considered as a strip, then under which other specific heading it will fall and how the appellants in the process would stand to gain. The learned SDR has said rightly that unless there was an ambiguity in the Tariff entry, the ISI cannot be resorted to for the purpose of assessment. It is seen that the appellants in the classification list filed by them, have described their goods as aluminum bare strips. There cannot be an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Tribunal)) took note of the following three judgments and held as under - (1) M/s. Shakti Insulated Wires Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others (reported in 1982 E.L.T. page 10). (2) M/s. Devidayal Rolling and Refineries Pvt. Ltd. v. H. V. Nadkami and Others in the Misc. petition Nos. 839 of 1979 (Judgment delivered on 16-8-1982). (3) He also cited the decision of the Tribunal vide order No. D-148/83, dated 30-3-1983 wherein the Tribunal has followed the above judgments of the Bombay High Court. Though the above judgments were not in respect of the case covering aluminum strips, which is the case under consideration, the ratio of these judgments would cover the aluminum strips as well. The goods in question therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
