Back
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
I.J. Rao, Jyoti Balasundaram, JJ.
Collector of Central Excise -Appellant
Versus
Insulated Conductors (P.) Ltd. -Respondent
Order No. E/202/90-D Appeal No. E/2280/84-D, E/202 of 1990, E/2280 of 1984
Decided On : 28-03-1990
Vijay Zutshi
I.J. Rao, Member (T)
1. The respondents are not present but by a letter dated 13-3-1990 they sought a decision on merits. We therefore heard Smt. Zutshi, learned SDR, perused the papers and proceed to pass the following order.
2. The question involved is simple; it is whether paper covered copper strips and fibre glass copper strips are goods of the same class within the meaning of Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Collector held that they are not goods of same class. From his order, it appears that he rejected the refund claim of the respondents interpreting the Rule 173L to mean that the goods received in the factory and cleared after remaking should be the same goods.
3. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the respondents' appeal holding that the goods received and the goods cleared fall in the same Tariff Item and therefore the provisions of Rule 173L were satisfied. As result he directed that the remaining amount of refund (Around Rs. 1200/-) should be sanctioned.
4. Smt. Zutshi, learned SDR submitted that in terms of nomenclature used and their composition, paper covered copper strips are different from fibre glass copper strips. Therefore she supported the Assistant Collector's order submitting that the impugned order should be vacated.
5. We have considered the submissions of Smt. Zutshi and perused the impugned order. The words "goods of the same class" did not mean "the same goods". Here, as recorded by the Collector (Appeals), the goods received and goods cleared both fall under the same Tariff Item. So, it appears that even without liberal construction, the two kinds of copper strips should be considered as "goods of the same class". Even the Collector in his grounds of appeal agrees that goods belonging to the, same Tariff Item may be considered as belonging to the same class but he makes one exception in respect of glass falling under Tariff Item 68 as is a broad one. We do not agree with such a distinction.
6. For these reasons we find no merit in the appeal and dismiss it.
