1995 (3) TMI 223 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal: Steel shots & grits not castings under Central Excise Tariff, require distinct classification

COLLECTOR OF C. EX., CALCUTTA Versus ORIENT STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD.

COLLECTOR OF C. EX., CALCUTTA Versus ORIENT STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD. - 1995 (78) E.L.T. 242 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:1. Definition and classification of steel shots and grits as castings.2. Applicability of specific tariff items under the Central Excise Tariff.3. Reliance on technical literature and expert opinions.4. Relevance of previous Tribunal decisions and Supreme Court observations.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Definition and Classification of Steel Shots and Grits as Castings:The primary issue in the appeal was whether steel shots and grits manufactured by throwing molten metal into water qualify as 'castings' under Item 26AA of the Central Excise Tariff or should be classified under Item 68. The Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-II contended that the process of throwing molten metal into water does not meet the definition of 'castings' as it lacks the conventional method of pouring molten metal into a mould. Standard technical dictionaries and reference books describe casting as forming into shape by pouring melted metal into a mould, which was argued to be absent in the manufacturing process of shots and grits.2. Applicability of Specific Tariff Items:The appeal emphasized that the revised Tariff Item 25, effective from 1-3-1983, explicitly differentiates between shot and angular grit (sub-item 4) and castings of iron or steel (sub-item 16). This distinction was used to argue that shots and grits should not be classified as castings under the old Tariff Item 26AA but under Item 68.3. Reliance on Technical Literature and Expert Opinions:The respondents presented various technical literature and expert opinions to support their claim that steel shots and grits are castings. They cited the Supreme Court's observation in Bharat Forge and Press Industries P. Ltd. v. Collector of C. Ex., which stated that goods should only be classified under a residuary entry if they cannot be reasonably classified under any specific tariff item. The respondents also provided certificates from government departments, agencies, and metallurgists classifying steel shots as castings. Notably, Dr. N.P. Sinha's certificate and the Metals Handbook by the American Society for Metals were cited to argue that modern casting processes do not always require conventional moulds.4. Relevance of Previous Tribunal Decisions and Supreme Court Observations:The Tribunal had previously ruled in 1987 (31) E.L.T. 979 that shots and grits are not castings, a decision which was appealed to the Supreme Court but not stayed. The Tribunal reiterated this stance in Wheelabrator Alloy Castings Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (1989 (39) E.L.T. 579), emphasizing that shots and grits are not formed like conventional castings and thus do not merit classification under Item 26AA. The Tribunal also noted that while some government agencies classified steel shots as castings, this did not align with the technical definitions and manufacturing processes described in standard references.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that steel shots and grits do not meet the technical and conventional definitions of castings. Despite various expert opinions and government classifications, the Tribunal upheld the distinction made in technical literature and previous decisions. Consequently, the appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-II, was allowed, and the order-in-appeal was set aside, affirming that steel shots and grits should be classified under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff rather than Item 26AA.