Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Commissioner Of C. Ex. vs Dewas Techno Products (P) Ltd. on 5 January, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(131)ELT182(TRI-DEL)
ORDER Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the impugned goods, whether they should be classifiable under sub-heading No. 7216.20 of the Central Excise Tariff as claimed by the Respondents, M/s. Dewas Techno Products (P) Ltd. or under sub-heading No. 7308.30 as pleaded by the Revenue. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise had observed that the assessee was manufacturing metal sections for doors and window frames and that the metal sections were specifically classified under sub-heading No. 7216.20. The Revenue had filed an appeal with the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) who confirmed the view taken by the adjudicating authority. In appeal, the Revenue has pleaded that the Board vide Circular No. 46/90, dated 21-11-1990 had clarified that the cold rolled formed shapes and sections prepared for use in structures would be appropriately classified under subheading No. 7308.90 w.e.f. 1-3-1988.
2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the Respondents. It is an old matter in which the show cause notice was issued in the year 1991. We are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri Satnam Singh, SDR.
3. We find that both the adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority had decided the matter on the basis of the processes adopted by the assessee. The assessee was bringing hot rolled coils /strips, cold rolled coils/strips, skelps and sheets. These were slitted as per the required width and passed through a rolling machine for the manufacture of cold rolled formed metal sections. If required by the customers, these were cut to specified length and remand. The Asstt. Collector has observed that otherwise the sections were cleared as such. These metal sections were specifically utilised for door and window frames.
4. We find that for classification under Heading No. 7308, the goods should be in the nature of structures. Both the adjudicating and appellate authorities had come to the same view that the goods under consideration were not structures or parts of structures.
5. The assessee has also raised a point that their classification lists were already approved and that the demand was not correct as it was against the approved classification list. We find that the matter is covered by the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE, Madras v. Tube Investment of India Ltd., 1994 (71) E.L.T. 291 (T), wherein the Tribunal had observed that the sections not further worked out by assessee after cold-forming were classifiable under sub-heading No. 7216.20 of the tariff and Unitech Metals Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi, 1998 (98) E.L.T. 628 (Tribunal), wherein the Tribunal had observed that the angles, shapes and sections cold formed for use in structures, if not prepared for use in these structures by further working, were classifiable under sub-heading No. 7216.20 and not under Heading No. 7308 of the Central Excise Tariff.
6. As the matter is already covered and the case has been decided on the basis of the facts on record, we do not find any material to disturb the findings of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. Ordered accordingly.