1988 (10) TMI 43 - SC - Central Excise

Supreme Court affirms Tribunal's classification of steel products under Central Excise Tariff

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE Versus CALCUTTA STEEL INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to classify rectangular steel products of thickness below 3.0 mm as bars under Tariff Item 26AA(ia) ... Whether rectangular products of thickness 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 Item 26AA attracting effective rate of duty of ₹ 450/- per MT less the reduction provided for under Notification No. 55/80, dated 13th May, 1980.? Held that:- The Tribunal was correct in allowing the appeals and held that the flat product of thickness less than 3.00 mm and a width of less than 75 mm is classifiable as bars as claimed by the respondents herein and not as hoops as held by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise and upheld by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise. In allowing the appeals, the Tribunal referred to U.S. Steel Publications (The shaping and treating of Steel) & came to the conclusion that it will be more appropriate to assess them under Section 26AA(ia) than Section 26AA(ii). Appeal dismissed. Issues:Classification of rectangular products of thickness below 3.0 mm as bars or hoops under Tariff Item 26AA.Analysis:The case involved appeals from the decision of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal regarding the classification of rectangular products by a steel industry. The industry classified the products as bars under Tariff Item 26AA(ia), while the authorities believed they should be classified as hoops under sub-item (ii) of the same Tariff Item. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, initially held that the products were hoops based on the definition of 'Hoops' provided by the Ministry of Steel and the Indian Standard Institution. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) also upheld this classification, considering various definitions including the Indian Standard and the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature. The Appellate Collector emphasized that the nature of the mill used for manufacturing should not be the sole determining factor in classification, but all relevant considerations must be taken into account.The respondents then appealed to the Tribunal, which overturned the previous decisions and classified the products as bars. The Tribunal referred to U.S. Steel Publications to support their decision, highlighting that the products were not produced using the methods typically associated with hoops. The Tribunal emphasized that the length and production method of the goods did not align with the characteristics of hoops as described in authoritative works. They also noted that the nature of the mill used should not be the sole criterion for classification, and all relevant factors must be considered.The Tribunal further considered the judgment in South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, where the court emphasized the importance of accurately identifying the nature of the goods for classification purposes. The Tribunal's decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of all relevant facts and materials, concluding that the products should be assessed under Section 26AA(ia) as bars rather than Section 26AA(ii) as hoops. The Supreme Court, after examining the Tribunal's decision, found no misdirection in law or non-consideration of facts. They upheld the Tribunal's conclusion, stating that it followed logically from the premises considered, and dismissed the appeals.In conclusion, the case revolved around the proper classification of rectangular steel products and highlighted the importance of considering all relevant factors, beyond just the nature of the manufacturing mill, in determining the appropriate tariff classification under the Central Excise Tariff.