CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Harish Chander, V. Rajamanickam, JJ.
Calcutta Steel Industries -Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise -Respondent
Order Nos. E/216 to 379/1990-B1 AND OTHERS Appeal No. E/3017/88-B1, E/216 to of 1990, 379 of 1990
Decided On : 20-12-1990
V. Rajamanickam, Member (T)
1. Out of above 164 Appeals, 10 Appeals from S.No. 154 to 163 have been filed by the Department and the issues involved in respect of 106 Appeals pertain to the period from 01-08-1983 to 29-02-1988 and the remaining 56 Appeals pertain to the period from 01-03-l988 onwards. On an identical issue, M/s. Ajanta Steel Corporation have filed an Appeal in E/Appeal No. 2784/89-B1 and the Department has also filed an Appeal against the Order of the C.C.E.(Appeals) in E/Appeal No. 2792/89-B1. All the Appeals pertain to the orders passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in respect of classification of the products of Iron and Steel as per the Tariff prevailing during the relevant periods. The issues involved in all the appeals being common are taken up for issue of a consolidated common order.
2. During the period from 01-08-1983 to 27-02-1986, the Tariff Item 25 covered Iron and Steel, and products thereof, definitions of the various products among others, viz. Hoops, Strips, Flats and Bars were incorporated.
For the period from 01-08-1983 to 27-02-1986, under the revised Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, Chapter 72 was introduced, and the definitions were incorporated verbatim as Chapter notes.
From 01-03-1988, Chapter 72 was further revised with Chapter notes containing broad description of "Flat Rolled Products" and definitions of such products were incorporated under the Tariff sub-headings, the categories of products like - Hoops, Strips, Flat were listed, but no statutory definition for these items were given. The bone of contention between the assessee and the Department is to determine the category under which these items should be classified.
3. The main issues involved are that the Appellants are having an Iron and Steel Re-Rolling Mill which is commonly known as Section/Merchant Mill. The products manufactured have a thickness: (a) less than 3mm and width below 75mm, (b) thickness less than 3mm and width above 75mm, (c) thickness 3mm and above but less than 5mm.
These issues date back to the period even prior to 01-08-1983 when the manufacturers have been agitating that their products of Section/Bar Mill do not have controlled contour, rectangular, cross-section or rolled/slitted or sheared edges and merited classification as 'Bar' under the then Tariff Item 26AA(ia) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and did not qualify for assessment as Flats, Strips, Hoops or Sheets, which are products of sophisticated Strips/Flat/Sheet mills and during the period when no descriptions were available, the Central Board of Excise and Customs had been issuing instructions from time to time, the difficulty in classification arising due to the over-lapping physical dimensions of these products, under Tariff Advice 4/67 dated 08-06-1967 and Tariff Entry No. 78/75 dtd. 01-06-1975, and these instructions were further modified and thereby the classification of the products became a controversial issue in classifying the products as Bar, Strip or Hoop by the Departmental officers. The Tribunal in its order reported in MANU/CE/0181/1987 : 1987 (30) E.L.T. 527 had held the product as a 'Bar'.
With effect from 28-02-1986, the Chapter heading 72 and 73 covered Iron and Steel products and statutory definitions already in existence during the period when Tariff Item-25 was in existence were incorporated and the decision of the Tribunal holding their products to be a Bar before and after 28-02-1986 should prevail. But, however, their Classification List was not approved by the Assistant Collector for classification under 'Bar', and their products having thickness less than 3mm and width below 75mm were classified as Hoops under Heading 7211.10, those having thickness less than 3mm and width 75mm and over as Strip under Heading 7211.39 and those having thickness less than 5mm as Flats under Heading 7209.10. In Appeal before the Collector (Appeals), the Order of the Assistant Collector was upheld.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.