Wooden H-Beam classification turns on final product character, with remand ordered for fresh consideration and hearing.

Classification of a wooden H-Beam turned on whether the finished product fell under Heading 4405.90 as wood merely shaped or under Heading 4410.90 as an article of wood. The reasoning treated Heading 4405 as covering wood in a processed but still recognisable timber form, while the H-Beam was described as an assembled article made from processed wooden components and not wood per se. Because the lower authority's reasoning was found inadequate, the classification was set aside and the matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication after hearing the appellants and permitting further evidence and legal material, in line with natural justice.

---

---

Issues: Whether the product "H-Beam" made of wood was classifiable under Heading 4405.90 or Heading 4410.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The product was described as a fabricated timber/plywood beam assembled from processed wooden components. Heading 4405 was treated as covering wood that is merely shaped, grooved or finger-jointed, whereas the goods in question were not cleared as wood per se but as a distinct assembled article. The reasoning of the lower authority was found inadequate, and the nature and use of the H-Beam suggested that it prima facie answered the description of an article of wood falling outside the narrower scope adopted by the revenue. The appellants were also to be allowed to place further evidence and legal material before the appellate authority in accordance with natural justice.

Conclusion: The classification issue was not finally decided against the appellants, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication after giving the appellants an opportunity to be heard and to produce evidence.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded to the extent that the impugned classification was set aside for reconsideration, and the dispute was sent back for a reasoned decision on classification.

Ratio Decidendi: Processed wood used to manufacture an assembled article is not necessarily classifiable as wood merely because individual components undergo shaping or grooving; classification must follow the character of the final product, and an inadequately reasoned order may be remanded for fresh decision consistent with natural justice.

---