TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (3) TMI 159
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....307.07. After an enquiry, the third respondent has confirmed the demand and the appeal preferred before the second respondent was also dismissed, against which a further appeal before the first respondent tribunal was filed. The first respondent tribunal confirmed the order of the authorities which is under challenge in the above writ petition. 3.The issue to be decided in the above writ petition is as to whether the items fall within the classification 7307.00 or it falls under the classification 73.05 under sub-heading 7305.90? 4.The relevant headings are reproduced below for the purpose of reference: "7307.00 Tube or pipe fittings (for example, couplings, elbows, sleeves), of iron or steel 73.05 Other tubes and pipes (for example, welded, riveted or similarly closed), having internal and external circular cross-sections, the external diameter of which exceeds 406.4 mm, of iron or steel. 7305.10 of iron 7305.90 Other" 5.The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that inasmuch as the bending ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omenclature), held that the product has to be classified as pipe fittings, falling under tariff heading 7307 and as such, no interference is called for. 8.The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel would also contend that as per the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. L.M.P.Precision Engg. Co. Ltd [2004 (163) E.L.T. 290 (S.C.) = 2004 (9) SCC 703] , entry has to be interpreted by referring to the express words in the tariff heading. He has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in O.K. Play (India) Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III, Gurgaon [2005 (180) E.L.T. 300 (S.C.) = 2005 (2) SCC 460] to the effect that the guidelines as given in HSN should be looked into considering the product as used in the trade or common parlance. He further contended that the taxing statutes should be interpreted by literal and strict construction as found in the statutes and placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Hansraj and Sons v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others [2002 (6) SCC 227]. The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel would also contend that only an appeal shall lie and the wr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal is not correct in holding that the product also functions as a joint of two pipes. On the other hand, under entry 73.05, the pipes are described as a product which can be welded, riveted or similarly closed. Admittedly, even as per the finding rendered by the tribunal, the process of welding is involved with regard to the product in question. If that is so, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. L.M P. Precision Engg. Co. Ltd [2004 (9) SCC 703] and Hansraj and Sons v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others [2002 (6) SCC 227], if literal and strict construction is given, the product will not fall under classification 7307.00. But on the other hand, it would fall under classification 73.05 under sub-heading 7305.90. 12.The tribunal erred in defining the product as "pipe fittings" by considering the definition of "pipe and tubes" as given in HSN. The definition of "pipes and tubes" as given in HSN is set out hereunder:- "Tubes and pipes Concentric hollow products, of uniform cross-section with only one enclosed void along their whole length, having their inner and outer surfaces of the same form. Steel tubes are mainly of circular, ova....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ipes at desired angles in the different pieces and the pipe is bent to withstand high pressure of water which flows from one end of pipes to the other end of pipes. Hence the definition as contained in HSN cannot be construed that the product in question can be termed as pipe fittings as classified under 7307.00. 14.Apart from the above fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the tariff entries must be interpreted as per the commercial parlance test and not in the scientific and technical terms. In connection with the above proposition of law, it is useful to refer to the decisions referred in Indo International Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1981 E.L.T. 325 (S.C.)], Pharm Aromatic Chemicals v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay [1997 (95) E.L.T. 203 (Bom.)], Novopan India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs [1994 (73) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.)], G.S.Auto International Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2003 (152) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] and National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2004 (7) Supreme 372]. 15.As regards the contention to the effect that a writ is not maintainable and only an appeal shall lie is conc....