2002 (3) TMI 111 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal remands case for detailed review on classification under CETA; appellants get chance to present evidence.

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI

The tribunal remanded the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further consideration, emphasizing the need for detailed reasoning and allowing the ... Wood - Classification - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Classification - Remand Issues: Classification of the product 'H-Beam' under CETA - Heading 4410.90 or 4405.90Issue 1: Classification DisputeThe dispute revolves around the classification of the product 'H-Beam' made of wood. The appellants and the Revenue had been classifying the product under Heading 4410.90 of CETA since 1993. However, a proposed change in classification introduced in March 1999 by the Revenue placed the product under Heading 4405.90 of CETA, 1985. The ld. DR supported the classification under Heading 4405.90, while the ld. Counsel for the appellants argued for the classification under Heading 4410.90, presenting a note on the fabrication process of H-Beam.Issue 2: Nature of the ProductThe note on fabrication of H-Beam described the process involved in manufacturing the product, highlighting that H-Beams are not wood per se but are made using processed timber. The discussion focused on whether the processed timber used in manufacturing H-Beams falls under Heading 44.05, which covers wood shaped or processed in specific ways. The tribunal analyzed whether the longitudinal members of the H-Beams, even if excisable, should attract duty under Heading 4405.20.Issue 3: Lower Authorities' FindingsThe tribunal reviewed the findings of the lower authorities and the arguments presented by the ld. Counsel. It disagreed with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s conclusion that the product should be classified under CSH 4405.90, emphasizing the need for detailed reasoning. The tribunal referenced the decision in CCE v. Deccon Structural Ltd. and examined the chapter notes of HSN Heading to determine the appropriate classification under CETA.Judgment and RemandThe tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further consideration. It emphasized the importance of allowing the appellants to present evidence and case laws to support their claim for classification under Heading 4410.90. The tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a reasoned order after hearing the appellants and complying with the Principles of Natural Justice. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed by way of remand, providing an opportunity for a more detailed examination of the classification issue.