Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether patta patti was classifiable as strip under the Central Excise Tariff prior to 1-8-1983 and after 1-8-1983, or fell under the competing tariff entries relied upon by the assessees.
Analysis: The tariff position prior to 1-8-1983 was examined with reference to the departmental clarification that strip was expected to be in coil form. For the period after 1-8-1983, the definition of strip in the tariff explanation was considered to require satisfaction of the stated conditions, including approximate rectangular cross-section, mill rolled or sheared or trimmed edges, and supply in coil or flattened coil form. The product in question was found not to be in coil or flattened coil form, and the expression "straight length" was treated as only explanatory of flattened coil, not as an independent alternative. The reasoning also accepted that the concept of strip in the tariff could not be divorced from the technical features of a strip product, and relied on the binding effect of the Supreme Court's approval of the earlier view that similar goods not produced or supplied in the requisite coil form were not strip.
Conclusion: Patta patti was not strip and was not classifiable under the revenue's proposed strip entries; it was classifiable under Tariff Item 26AA(ia) prior to 1-8-1983 and under Tariff Item 25(8) after 1-8-1983, in favour of the assessee.