AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (7) TMI 359
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ezoidal armouring wire" merits classification as 'Wires' under sub-item (ia) of T.I. 26AA of the C.E.T. or as 'Strips' under sub-item (iii) ibid as then existing. 2. The appellants manufacture what was described in the invoices as stated above. They claim that their product conforms to I.S. Specification No. 3975-1967 and its dimension as Upper width 4 mm. Inner width 3.4 mm, thickness 0.8 mm. and Radius 10.0 mm. The Superintendent of Central Excise, AR-I, Baroda during his visit to the appellants' factory on enquiry found that the appellants' product was rectangular in cross-section having width ranging 3.8 mm to 4.2 mm and thickness of 0.8 mm; they were manufacturing the same by cold-rolled process. On verification of the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bombay. Shri Bhatt further argued that strip should have rectangular cross-section and dimension as given in Tariff Ruling Nos. 23/65, 4/67 & 5/68. He also argued that Steel strips as contemplated under Tariff Item 26AA are the product of hot or cold rolled process and manufactured out of steel ingots or semi-finished steel. The appellants' product conforms to I.S. Specification No. 3975-1967 as per the diagrams set out therein and was not rectangular in cross-section but circular in shape. It was neither sheared nor trimmed. It was also not a product of hot or cold-rolled process but was obtained through drawing of steel round wires through a die of regular size and shape. For these reasons, the appellants' product would not be classifiabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly urge that armour strip was different from strip for the purposes of classification under the Central Excise Tariff. He submitted that the appellants' product was rolled strip and therefore the mere fact that it had not been manufactured in a strip mill would not make any difference. He strongly defended the order of the Appellate Collector, which he said was based on appellants' own invoice descriptions, and was supported by Chemical Examiner's opinion. 5. Questioned, why the definition of strip as set out in the present tariff as amended in 1983 and the earlier clarifications of the Board did not squarely cover appellants' product. Shri Lakshmi Kumaran submitted that possibly a product like the one manufactured by the appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e at pages 598 & 599 of Central Excise Tariff of India 1983-1984, 10th Edn. Central Law Office, New Delhi. The same description is also available in C.B.E. & C's Circular dated 13-4-1982 (available in Collectorate of Central Excise, Pune v. M/s Tigrania Metal & Steel Industries and was filed by the Department in that case, as this case was not reported the file was called for and examined). It appears that the present amendment gives statutory recognition to the earlier departmental description of strip. Now according to present definition and earlier (definition) description, strip must be hot or cold rolled product. The appellants contend and the Department does not dispute that the appellants' product is neither of the two. Strip must be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was both wires and strips. Such a vague description could not be used to fasten liability for duty on a party. Apart from this we also note and it is not disputed by the department that the description of the product in the trade is not uniform. Other manufacturers like Special Steel Ltd. described the product as wire. In fact it has been urged by the appellants and not disputed by the other party that in the case of Special Steel Ltd. Flat armouring wire for cables manufactured by the Company has not been considered as steel strips. 7. For the purpose of this appeal, it is not necessary to consider whether the appellants' product in order to be classified as strip should be the product of a strip mill and what is the effect of the....