Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Vadarbha Veneer Industries Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 7 June, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991ECR551(TRI.-DELHI), 1991(56)ELT419(TRI-DEL)
ORDER P.C. Jain, Member (T)
1. Question involved in these appeals is a common one, therefore, a common order is being passed.
2. Question is whether 'block-board' manufactured by the appellants falls under Tariff Heading 4410.90 or 4408.90 CET. The assessees/appellants submit that sub-heading 4410.90 is appropriate, while the department has classified under the Heading 4-408.90. The Tribunal in its order No. 427 to 431/1989-D dated 18-10-89 in the case of Woodcraft Products Ltd. has upheld the contention of the manufacturers/appellants that it falls under Tariff sub-heading 4410.90 CET. Learned advocate for the appellants herein has strongly relied on the said order of the Tribunal.
3. I have some reservations about the classification of the product under subheading 4410.90 for the following brief reasons :-
(i) the Central Excise Tariff is closely modelled on HSN and particularly the Chapter 44, preference should be given to the Explanatory Notes to HSN which carry a high persuasive value in such a circumstance, as held by the Tribunal in a number of cases in the case of BTN - (a) 1984 (17) ELT 473; (b) 1983 (12) ELT 804; (c) 1984 (18) ELT 645. Explanatory Notes specifically include block-board within Heading 44.08.
(ii) reliance only on ISI Glossary of terms for deciding the question of classification is misplaced, as observed by the Supreme Court in para 11 of 1986 (25) ELT 473 (SC); ISI Glossary is at best a piece of evidence as supportive material and no more.
(iii) reliance on the definition of 'laminated wood' and block-board in the ISI Glossary is totally out of context in the Tariff Heading 44.08 "plywood, veneered panels and similar laminated wood"; the words' similar' has to be interpreted on the principle of ejusdem generis because the earlier expressions 'plywood' and 'veneered panels' are laminated products of wood and so is 'block-board' as a laminated product of wood.
(iv) Notification 55/79-C.E. which is no longer operative - cannot help in classifying the product under the new Tariff; this being relic of the old Tariff wherein 'flush doors' were shown as included within the category of blockboard. It does not mean that flush doors have been equated with blockboard, for the purpose of classification. Only possible inference is that the Central Government has extended the concessional rate to flush doors as to blockboards. On the other hand, if this notification is looked at a little closely from another angle, it supports the view that blockboard should have the same rate of duty as that of flush doors, since it is well-known that restructuring of the new Central Excise Tariff oh HSN was admittedly revenue-neutral. That could be so if the blockboards were classified under sub-heading 4408.90 rather than sub-heading 4410.90. Further, this view point is strengthened by clubbing of blockboard with 'veneered panels', among other products, in Notification 55/79 (as amended) and the 'veneered panels' are specifically classified under Heading 44.08.
4. Nevertheless, we observe that the learned SDR has submitted that the case is covered in favour of the appellants in view of the Tribunal's Order No. 427-431/89-D dated 18-10-1989. In view of this stance of the respondents, we are constrained to allow the appeals.
I agree with the conclusion following the ratio of the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Woodcraft Products Ltd., Order No. 427 to 431/89-D dated 18-10-1989.