1998 (6) TMI 242 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal classifies SWR Pipe Fittings under Central Excise Tariff Heading 39.17

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the SWR Pipe Fittings should be classified under Heading 39.17 of the Central Excise Tariff, ... Classification Issues Involved:Classification of SWR Pipe Fittings under Central Excise Tariff - Heading 39.17 or Heading 39.25Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Classification of SWR Pipe FittingsThe primary issue in the appeal was the classification of SWR Pipe Fittings manufactured by the appellants under the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants claimed that the fittings should be classified under Heading 39.17, while the Collector of Central Excise classified them under Heading 39.25. The advocate for the appellants argued that they were not manufacturing gutters but only PVC Pipes and Fittings. He referred to technical books defining gutters and highlighted the distinction between pipes and gutters as per Indian Standard Specification 1626-1980. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) also emphasized that unless the products conform to the description and are known as gutters, they cannot be classified as such. Additionally, the Commissioner noted that pipes and fittings are specifically covered under Chapter Heading 39.17 and cannot fall under Heading 39.25 as per Chapter Note 11(c.Issue 2: Interpretation of Common ParlanceThe learned SDR argued that terms not defined in the statute should be interpreted based on common parlance, how they are understood by people dealing with them. He contended that the fittings manufactured by the appellants were used to connect pipes, which in turn were connected to gutters, making the fittings part of the gutter category under Note 11 to Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff.Judgment and ConclusionAfter considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal examined Heading 39.17 covering tubes, pipes, and fittings of plastics, and Heading 39.25 dealing with builders' ware of plastics. It was undisputed that the appellants were not manufacturing gutters but only the fittings for connecting pipes. The Tribunal rejected the department's argument that common parlance should take precedence over technical definitions in Civil Engineering. The Tribunal noted that the fittings were used to connect pipes for conveying liquid, as specified in Heading 39.17. Moreover, the IS Specification clearly differentiated between pipes and fittings and gutters and fittings. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the fittings manufactured by the appellants should be classified under Heading 39.17 of the Central Excise Tariff, thereby allowing the appeal in favor of the appellants.