Concessional excise classification upheld where telecommunication cables matched the notified description and undisclosed correspondence could not support duty demand.

Cables described as underground and overground telecommunication wires and cables were held to fall within Serial No. 2(ii) and (iii) of Notification No. 50 of 1968, so the concessional excise rate of 5% ad valorem applied rather than the residuary classification adopted by the department. The appellate order was also found unsustainable because it relied on selective extracts from correspondence without disclosure of the full material and without affording an effective opportunity to test that material, including requested cross-examination. The petitioners were therefore entitled to the concessional rate and consequential refund, and the adverse classification was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners' cables fell within Serial No. 2(ii) and (iii) of Notification No. 50 of 1968 so as to attract the concessional rate of duty of 5% ad valorem; (ii) Whether the appellate order could be sustained when it rested on extracts from letters without disclosure of the full material and without affording effective opportunity to test that material.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners' cables fell within Serial No. 2(ii) and (iii) of Notification No. 50 of 1968 so as to attract the concessional rate of duty of 5% ad valorem.

Analysis: The record showed that the goods manufactured were underground and overground telecommunication wires and cables. The contemporaneous approval by the technical development authority supported the petitioners' description of the goods. On that basis, the goods were held to answer the description in Serial No. 2(ii) and (iii), and not the residuary entry adopted by the department.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the petitioners. The goods were held to be covered by the exemption notification and liable only to 5% ad valorem duty.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate order could be sustained when it rested on extracts from letters without disclosure of the full material and without affording effective opportunity to test that material.

Analysis: The appellate authority relied only on extracts from departmental correspondence, while the origin of the samples, the identity of the person giving the opinion, and the surrounding material were not disclosed. The petitioners had sought cross-examination, but that opportunity was not granted. Such selective reliance on incomplete material was held to be unfair and insufficient for a quasi-judicial determination.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the petitioners. The appellate order was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to the concessional excise rate and consequential refund, and the departmental classification rejecting that benefit was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial authority cannot base an adverse classification or duty demand on undisclosed or incomplete extracts from correspondence, and goods answering the notified description are entitled to the prescribed concessional rate.

---