Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. We further note that the description in the tariff entry is broad and would cover in its ambit goods of similar kind. Merely because the goods in question are being given different names depending upon their locations and purpose, it cannot be said that they are not goods to be used in pre-fabricated buildings and are ornamental in character. In fact, as a common man, we all know that cornices, column, ceilings and arches are part and parcel of pre-fabricated buildings and form the very basis of the building and cannot be said to be of ornamental character. Merely because the shape of the product is different than the ordinary blocks and slabs in the sense that they may not be square or rectangular, the same cannot be held to be a criteria to move out of heading 6807.20. Support can be drawn from Notification No. 64/88 and 8/96, which provide concessional rate of duty to the goods falling under 68.07 described as- 'blocks, slabs, lintels, concrete beam and stairs constituting intermediates and components of pre-fabricated buildings falling under heading 94.06. As such it can be safely concluded that the various products used in the building would be covered by the description of the items against heading 6807.20.

5. We further find favour with the following observations made by Commissioner (Appeals):

10. From 1.3.1997, the notification was withdrawn and it was made part of the Central Excise Tariff. The tariff description for chapter sub heading 6807.20 read as "blocks, slabs, concrete beams and stairs of a kind used in prefabricated buildings of heading No. 94.06". Therefore, while the meaning of the description in notification giving benefit of concessional rate of duty and the present tariff has not changed, the scope of coverage has been widened under the present chapter heading by using the words 'of a kind used in' instead of 'constituting intermediates and components of. The items to be covered under this entry should not necessarily have to be in the form of blocks, slabs, concrete beams and stairs, but the items which are akin to these description are also covered under this entry, if these are used in pre-fabricated buildings of heading No. 94.06. For the use in pre-fabricated buildings of heading No. 94.06, there is no dispute in the impugned order. In such a situation where the material words are capable of bearing two or more constructions, the most firmly established rule for construction of such words is the rule laid down in Hayden's case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore v. Tetragon Chemie P. Ltd. has interpreted the use of words 'of a kind used in'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court negated the view taken by the Commissioner in that matter that the animal feed supplement would only be classified under entry 2302 if these are directly used as such for animals feeding and the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the view of CEGAT that animal feed supplements were rightly included in tariff item 2302 being preparation of a kind used in animal feeding including dogs and cats food. The ratio of this case is applicable to the present case, in as much as, the items in dispute are of a kind of blocks, slabs, concrete beams, etc. and if one looks at the policy of legislature, one would find that earlier these items carried concessional rate of duty and from 1.3.1997 onwards the items have been covered in the tariff itself by providing duty at a lower percentage than normal rate of duty. I do not find any basis to sustain the impugned order.