2001(07)LCX0078
IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
S/Shri G.R. Sharma, Member (T) and S.S. Kang, Member (J)
CALCUTTA TEACHEST & FIBRE LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA - I
Final Order No. 363/2001-B, dated 23-7-2001 in Appeal No. E/5608/91-B
CASE CITED
P.D. Sarawagi & Co. v. Commissioner — 1999(06)LCX0057 Eq 1999 (114) ELT 0185 (Tribunal) — Followed [Paras 4, 6]
Advocated By : None, for the Appellant.
Shri R.D. Negi, SDR, for the Respondent.
[Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. - In the impugned order ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) held that Tea Chest metal fittings are appropriately classifiable under Chapter Heading 8302.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act. Being aggrieved by this decision, the appellants have filed the captioned appeal.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants submitted classification list in respect of Tea chest Metal Fittings made of Tin Plate Waste under sub-heading 8302.00 with the remark ‘Under Protest’. The appellants claimed that the goods manufactured by them namely Metal Fittings for Tea chest were classifiable either under sub-heading 7216.90 or under chapter sub-heading 7207.00 and not under chapter sub-heading 8302.00. The Asstt. Collector after examining the interpretative Rules, Section Notes of Section XV, Chapter notes of Chapter 84 and the relevant notes of the explanatory notes to the HSN concluded that the goods shall be classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 8302.00. The appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who held as indicated above.
3. None appeared for the appellants.
4. Shri R.D. Negi, ld. SDR appearing for the respondent Commissioner submits that similar issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of P.D. Sarawagi & Co. v. CCE, Calcutta reported in 1999 (114) ELT 185 in which this Tribunal held that :
“6. Taking into account the nature of the product and their use, we find that their classification under sub-heading 8302.00 was correct. There is no infirmity in the view taken by the ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and all these five appeals are rejected.”
He, therefore, submitted that the case is squarely covered in favour of the Revenue and prayed that the appeal of the assessee may be rejected.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the ld. SDR. We note that the appellants have claimed the classification of Teachest Metal Fittings under Chapter Heading No. 7216.90 of the Central Excise Tariff which covers angles, shapes and sections of iron or non-alloy steel and others. We also note that Chapter Note 1(n) under Chapter 72 of the Tariff, angles, shapes and sections have been defined as under :
“Products having a uniform solid cross-section along their whole length which do not conform to any of the definitions at (ij), (k), (l) or (m) above or to the definition of wire.”
On examination we find that Chapter Heading 7207.00 covers tube or pipe fittings of iron or steel. The goods in question are not classifiable under sub-heading 7307.00.
We note that under sub-heading 8302.00, Metal Fittings for chest are mentioned. Though there is no reference to teachest, yet we find that the fittings referred to in sub-heading No. 8302.00 are for different products like furniture, staircases, windows, caskets etc. While the fittings had to be necessarily of base metal, it is not the requirement of sub-heading that such fittings should be suitable only for articles of base metals.
6. Having regards to this, we do not see any reason to disagree with the findings of this Tribunal in the case of P.D. Sarawagi & Co. In this view of the matter, we hold that the classification of Metal Fittings for Tea chest shall fall under Chapter sub-heading 8302.00. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is rejected.
Equivalent 2001 (133) ELT 704 (Tri. - Del.)
Equivalent 2001 (046) RLT 0281