Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Collector Of C. Ex. vs Aggarwal Steel Industries on 27 September, 1996
Equivalent citations: 2003(159)ELT811(TRI-DEL)
ORDER Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the seizure had been affected from M/s. Aggarwal Steel Industries who were not the manufacturer of the goods seized. They had received circles, and the other goods which Revenue treated as strips but the manufacturer from whom M/s. Aggarwal Steel Industries had purchased the goods, as 'patta/patti'. There was also some scrap which has arisen when the circles and 'patta/patti' were processed to produce utensils by the respondents. Some utensils were also seized. The case of the Revenue is that the goods received were strips classifiable under Item No. 25(12) of the Tariff while the goods had been classified by the manufacturer from whom the said respondents had purchased, under Item No. 25(8). They had availed of the exemption which was available to the goods falling under Item No. 25(8) of the Tariff. The Collecter of Central Excise Appeals has observed that the appellants (respondents before us) had claimed that what they have brought was stainless steel 'patta/patti' and not the stainless steel strips. Further he observed that the seizure had been brought not from the manufacturer but from the user and that there was no ground for the seizure of the goods and no case is made out against the appellants before him, M/s. Aggarwal Steel Industries.
2. We have carefully considered the matter. Whether the goods are strips or whether they are 'patta and patti' have been clarified by the Board in their clarification under F. No. 139/65/84 CH4 dt. 29-3-85. In the case before us the seizure had been affected from the manufacturer of the utensils. In this case the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had observed that there is no finding that what the assessee had received was the strips.
3. In the case of CCE v. Sancheti Synthetics (P) Ltd. - 1990 (48) E.L.T. 578 (T) the Tribunal had observed that stainless steel patties in question are of irregular shape as well as uneven thickness and the products are neither in coil nor in flattened from. Thus the goods do not justify the definition of 'strip' and are to be rightly classified under sub-item (8) of Item 25 of Central Excise Tariff (old). This decision was followed by the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Narayani Udyog Ltd. reported in 1992 (60) E.L.T. 595 (T).
4. There is nothing on record to show that the observations of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) were not correct when he observed that if a product is held to be a 'strip' under tariff item No. 25(12)(i) it must strictly conform to the definition of 'strip' as given in the tariff.
5. We find that there is no material on record to disturb the findings of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). As a result this appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.