9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Heading 7210.20 and had claimed exemption under Notification No. 175/86 (as amended). The Asstt. Commissioner by the order-in-original classified the item under Chapter Heading 9403.00. In order-in-appeal the Collector (A) reversed the Asstt. Commissioner s order and held that the products would more appropriately be classifiable under Chapter 72. 3. Ld. DR appearing for the department contends that in terms of Interpretative Rule 2(a) of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 reference to any item in knocked down condition or in unassembled condition, would include a reference to goods in complete or finished form provided the items in incomplete or unfinished form bear the essential character of finished or completed goods. In such case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that slotted angles cleared by them would be classifiable under Heading No. 9403 by virtue of Interpretative Rule 2(a) was not based on the factual situation. Explaining the position further ld. Consultant submitted that the respondents were also manufacturing and clearing slotted angles and slotted channels of various sizes, thickness and dimensions. He pointed out that slotted angles of higher thickness and larger dimensions, by their very nature, could not be used for making items of furniture. The fact that they were also manufacturing some items of furniture and some of the slotted angles cleared by them may also be used by the end-user for the manufacture of items of furniture would not make the entire clearance of slotted angles ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. 6. We find that the respondent s submissions that the steel angles cleared by them were of different sizes and thickness and therefore not capable of being used as parts of furniture in all cases has some force. Further, we are also in agreement with the observations of the Collector (A) that when the items are covered by specific headings it would be inappropriate to rely on Interpretative Rules. 7. In view of the above, we uphold the order of the Collector (A) and reject the Departments appeal. 8. [Assent per : S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President]. - I agree with the above conclusion regarding the correct classification, I would only like to add that the ld. DR had referred to the Rules for the interpretation of the Schedule and it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
