1998 (3) TMI 428 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Collector's Order on Slotted Angles Classification

The Tribunal upheld the Collector (A)'s order, rejecting the Department's appeal regarding the classification of slotted angles under the Central Excise ... Classification of goods Issues: Classification of Slotted Angles under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985Issue 1: Classification of Slotted AnglesThe appeal concerns the classification of slotted angles cleared by the respondents. The respondents classified slotted angles under Heading 7210.20 and claimed exemption under Notification No. 175/86. The Asstt. Commissioner classified the item under Chapter Heading 9403.00, while the Collector (A) reversed this decision and held that the products should be classified under Chapter 72.Analysis: The Department argued that under Interpretative Rule 2(a) of the Central Excise Tariff Act, reference to goods in incomplete form that bear the essential character of finished goods should be classified accordingly. Since slotted angles can be used for manufacturing steel furniture, the Department contended that the appropriate classification is under Heading No. 9403.00. On the other hand, the respondents argued that goods should be classified based on the form they are cleared in, not on end-use. They maintained that slotted angles were covered under Heading 7210.20 and that the Department's argument was not factually supported. The respondents also highlighted that they manufactured slotted angles of various sizes and dimensions, some of which were not suitable for furniture making. The Tribunal noted that the respondents simultaneously produced and cleared slotted angles under Chapter 72 and Chapter Heading 94.03. The Collector (A) emphasized that when products are cleared under specific headings, reliance on Interpretative Rules for goods of general description is inappropriate.Issue 2: Interpretation of Interpretative Rule 2(a)The Department contended that slotted angles, being capable of being used for making furniture, should be classified as parts of finished furniture under Rule 2(a). However, the respondents argued that the steel angles they cleared were not always suitable for furniture making due to varying sizes and thickness.Analysis: The Tribunal agreed with the Collector (A) that reliance on Interpretative Rules is unsuitable when items are classified under specific headings. The Collector (A) referenced a Board's Circular clarifying that slotted angles used for assemblies are not classifiable as steel furniture, supporting the classification under Chapter 72. The Tribunal upheld the Collector (A)'s decision, considering the varying sizes and thickness of the steel angles cleared by the respondents, which may not always be used for furniture making.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the Collector (A)'s order, rejecting the Department's appeal. The Vice President concurred with the classification decision and emphasized the importance of applying specific headings without reference to other interpretation rules, ultimately supporting the Collector (A)'s classification of the product.