LexCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE versus CALCUTTA STEEL INDUSTRIES AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
A
v.
CALCUTTA STEEL INDUSTRIES AND ORS.
OCTOBER 27, 1988
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.]
B
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944-Central Excise Tariff Items
26AA (ia) and 26AA (ii)-Hoop and Strip whether assessable to duty.
The respondent company filed revised classification lists classify-
ing all rectangular products of thickness below 3.0 mm manufactured C
by them as bars covered by Tariff Item 26AA(ia) of the Central Excise
Tariff. The Asstt. Collector, Central Excise took the view that
rectang'11ar products of thickness less than 3.0 mm and of width less
than 75 mm fell under the definition of 'Hoops' and merit classification
,
under Tariff Item 26AA(ii) and exigible to the appropriate duty. The
respondent preferred an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise D
who held that the product fell within the definition of 'Hoops' and
upheld the order of the Asst!. Collector.
,
I
The respondent appealed to the Tribunal which held that the flat
product of thickness less than 3.0 mm and a width of less than 75 mm
was classifiable as 'bars' as claimed by the respondent company and not
E
as 'Hoops' and allowed the appeals.
The Department therefore filed the appeals under Section 35L(b)
of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 before this Court.
Dismissing the appeals, this Court,
HELD: If the revenue wants to tax a particular goods known as
such then the onus is on the Revenue. [600FJ
F
'Hoop' is made either by slitting coiled strip rolled in multiple
width, into narrow coiled strip of the desired width, or from narrow G
coiled strip with a hot-rolled or mill edge and the type and width of
hoop being produced influences the choice of the method used. [S99B] ·
Curled hoop is made by a pinch-roll and curved guide-shoe
arrangement that permits the hoop to take a circular form. A straight
length hoop is produced merely by removing the curved guide-shoe. [5990 I H
595
A
B
c
D
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
Straight length is not a short length, it is long. {599E)
The· fact is that they were produced in a mill that could produce
hoops and· strips. Their lengths are not such as to place them in the same
class as hoops. Having, therefore, regard to this and the relevant tariff
item, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it will be more appropriate
to assess them under Item 26AA(ia) than Item 26AA(ii). [599G-H; 600A]
South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., [1968) 3
S.C.R. 21, referred to.
In an appeal under Section 35L(b) this Court has to see the
propriety and the correctness of adjudication. There was no misdirec-
tion in law nor any non-consideration of facts. There is no exclusion
from consideration oflegitimate proper materials. [600F-G I
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos.
1671-87 of 1987.
From the Judgment and order dated 22.4.1987 of the Customs,
Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in
Appeal No. 1546, 1547 etc. in Order No. 267 to 283 of 1987 BJ.
M.K.
Banerjee, Solicitor General, R.P. Sriv.astava and
E
P. Parmeswarn for the Appellants.
F
Soli J. Sorabji, K.K. Patel, Rajiv Dutta and R.S. Sodhi for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. These are appeals from the
decision of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal,
New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'CEGAT') under Section 35L(b)
of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called 'the Act').
The respondent Calcutta Steel Industries filed revised classification
G
liMs wherein they had classified all rectangular products of thickness
below 3.0 mm manufactured by them as bars covered by Tariff item
26AA(ia) of the Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector, Cent-
ral Excise was of the tentative view that rectangular products of thick-
ness less than 3.0 mm and of width less than 75 mm conform to the
definition of Hoops and merit classification under item (ii) of Tariff
H Item 26AA attracting effective rate of duty of Rs.450 per MT less the
COLLECTOR OF C.E. v. STEEL INDUSTRIES TMUKHARJI; J.J
597
reduction provided for under Notification No. 55/80 dated 13th May,
1980. The respondents were, therefore, called upon to show cause as
to why the classification list should not be amended and duty charged
accordingly. The respondents submitted their written statement and
requested for a personal hearing. The matter Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.