Physical condition of goods controlled tariff classification, so the matter was remitted for fresh factual determination.

Tariff classification depended on the physical condition of the commodity, namely whether it was in coil form or straight length, because that fact determined whether Item 26A(1a) or Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff applied. The Tribunal had not recorded a clear finding on that foundational fact, so the classification issue and the related excise liability could not be properly decided. As the other questions in the appeals also turned on the same missing factual determination, the order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh decision after the relevant facts were recorded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order required interference for want of a positive finding on the physical condition of the commodity, and whether the appeals should be remitted for fresh decision.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the factual question whether the commodity was in coil form or straight length and, on that basis, whether it was classifiable under Item 26A(1a) or Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal had not recorded a clear finding on the physical condition of the goods, though such a finding was necessary to decide the tariff classification and the excise liability. Since the other questions raised in the appeals also depended on that foundational factual determination, the matter was considered fit to be sent back for a fresh decision after recording the relevant facts.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was set aside and the appeals were remitted to the Tribunal for decision afresh.

---