1996(09)LCX0101

BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), GHAZIABAD

Shri B.P. Srivastava

IN RE : ADVANCE STEEL TUBES LTD.

Order-in-Appeal No. 857-CE/MRT/96, dated 26-9-1996

CASE CITED

Dunlop India Ltd. v. UOI — 1975(10)LCX0016 Eq 1983 (013) ELT 1566 (SC)                                                      [Para 2]

[Order]. - The facts of the case are that M/s Advance Steel Tubes Ltd., Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as the appellats) are engaged in the manufacture of Tower & Lattice Masts. The Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise Division II, Ghaziabad vide Order-in-Original No. 158/96, dated 28-6-1996 modified the classification list and approved the said items under sub-heading 8529.00 and also confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 9,47,212 of finalisation of classification list of the said item against the appellants. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants have preferred appeal.

2.In the ground of appeal, the appellants have submitted that according to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of Dunlop India Ltd. v. UOI - 1975(10)LCX0016 Eq 1983 (013) ELT 1566 (SC) = AIR 1977 SC 597 when an article falls within a specific entry, it must necessarily be excluded from the general entry and according to H.S.N. also the heading which provides the most specific description of the goods is to be preferred to a heading which provides a more general description a description by name is more specific than a description by class. Because on the above principles the explanatory notes to H.S.N. excluded from Heading 85.29 aerial masts falling under 7308.20, wherein it finds entry by name of `Towers and Lattice masts’. They further submitted that there was neither any show cause issued to them demanding duty nor was any other proposed demand of duty, still the impugned order confirms such a demand and therefore, the impugned order which confirms the demand is null and void being violative of principles of natural justice.

3.I have examined this case. It is a basic principle of law that specific provisions supercedes general provisions. Aerial masts has been specifically mentioned under chapter sub-heading 7308.20 whereas chapter 85.29 is of general nature covering parts suitably for use solely or principally with the apparatus of heading 85.25 to 85.28. Even the functions of aerial and lattice masts are different. The latter is used only to give support to the former. Even in the same divisions of the Central Excise, such goods were being classified under chapter sub-heading 7308.20 till middle of 1994. H.S.N. also differentiates between aerial and lattice masts. Therefore I hold that the goods in question would be appropriately classifiable under Chapter 7308.20.

4.In view of above, order of the Adjudicating authority is set aside.

Equivalent 1996 (087) ELT 0757 (Commr. Appl.)