Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chandigarh vs M/S Sunder Steel Products on 15 October, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing/Order : 15.10.2014
Appeal No. E/1597-1598/2006-EX(DB)
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 123-124/CE/CHD/06 dated 22.2.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh]
For Approval & Signature :
Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3.
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
CCE, Chandigarh Appellant
Vs.
M/s Sunder Steel Products Respondent
M/s Nav Durga Steel Products Appearance:
Shri Yashpal Sharma, D.R. - for the Appellant Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate - for the Respondent Coram : Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical) F. Order No. 54147-54148/2014 Per R.K. Singh :
These appeals have been filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 123-124/CE/CHD/06 dated 22.2.2006 which set aside the Order-in-Original No. 48-49/ADC/P&V/05 dated 27.12.2005.
2. Vide the aforesaid order-in-original the products manufactured by the appellants viz. shapes and sections of non-alloy steel were held to be classifiable under Heading 7308.90 as against the classification under Chapter 7216.90 claimed by the respondents and as a consequence the original adjudicating authority confirmed demand of Rs.32,35,784/- against M/s Sunder Steel Products and Rs.22,54,699/- against M/s Nav Durga Steel Products along with interest and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the order-in-original held that the impugned goods are classifiable under Heading 7216.20.
3. In its appeals Revenue has contended that :
(i) As per Boards Circular No.46/90 dated 21.11.90 the impugned goods are classified under sub-heading 7308.90
(ii) The Tribunals order in the case of CCE, Madras Vs. Tube Investment of India Ltd. 1994 (71) ELT 291 (Tri.) holding the classification of the goods under sub-heading 7216.20 did not consider Boards circular referred to above.
4. In its memorandum of cross-objections, the respondents have contended that:(i) they manufactured shapes and sections only which are non alloy steel products which fall under Chapter 72.
(ii) The impugned products are manufactured by process of cold rolling and are not further worked.
(iii)Heading 73.08 covers part of structures of iron and steel including shapes and sections prepared for use in structures.
5. We have considered the facts and submissions of both sides. We find that it is not contested by Revenue that impugned goods are obtained by process of cold rolling and are not further worked. Heading 72.16 includes shapes and sections of iron or non alloy steel. On the other hand Chapter 73.08 covers plates, rods, angles, shapes and sections tubes and the like prepared for use in structures. It clearly comes out that as the impugned goods came out as a result of cold rolling and were not further worked upon, they were not prepared for use in structures. In this regard we have perused Boards circular dated 21.11.1990 which is reproduced below :
The matter has been examined by the Board. It is observed that classification would have to be determined in accordance with the revised heading and scheme of classification in force from 1.3.1988. Heading 7308 CETA explicitly covers plates, rods, angles, shapes and sections, tubes and the like, prepared for use in structurals of iron and steel. HSN explanatory notes under heading 7216 at page 1001 also state that heading 7216 does not cover articles prepared for use in structurals. Consequently cold roll formed shapes and sections prepared for use in structurals would be appropriately classified under sub-heading 7308.90.
In view of the above, it is clarified that w.e.f. 1.3.1988 cold roll formed sections, prepared for use in structurals, will be classifiable under sub-heading 7308.90.
6. It is evident that Board has only clarified that 7308 explicitly covers plates, rods, angles, shapes and sections, tubes and the like, prepared for use in structurals of iron and steel. As stated earlier, the impugned goods were not prepared for use in structurals. Although Boards clarification is not binding on quasi judicial authorities for deciding classification, it is referred to here to indicate that even the said Boards circular does not support the contention of Revenue. Indeed the issue is fully covered by the judgement of CESTAT in the case of CCE Vs. Tube Investment of India Ltd. (supra), which, in fact, held as under :
There is no evidence that the sections under reference have been further worked out by the appellant after cold-forming; and in particular that these have been prepared for use in the manufacture of shutters, even assuming that shutters by themselves can be regarded as structures. A number of operations have to be carried out on the cold-formed sections manufactured by the appellants, such as bending lath sections into convex shapes for being used as parts of shutters and in the case of guide channels and bottom plates, cutting them into required lengths and welding with 20 mm or 1 6 mm with MS Sheets brackets and welding of cleats. Similarly, in the case of bottom plates sections, the same are to be cut to smaller lengths and strengthened by using reinforced angles which are rivetted to the plates. Further, on either side of the plates slot is made where the latches are welded for backing purposes. Thus classification under heading 72.16 is appropriate.
The said judgement has not been set aside by any superior authority. It may be pertinent to mention that Revenues contention that the said judgement was issued without taking into account Boards circular dated 21.11.1990 is irrelevant because as stated earlier, Boards circulars do not have any statutory standing nor are they binding on the quasi-judicial authorities and therefore not taking them into account does not in any way debilitate a quasi judicial order. Indeed, CESTAT Larger Bench in the case of Press Metal Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE 2000 (119) ELT 217 is also supportive of the classification decided by the impugned order.
7. In the light of the foregoing Revenues appeals are found to be devoid of merit and are therefore dismissed.
(Justice G. Raghuram) President (R.K. Singh) Member (Technical) RM 1