H.R. Syiem, Member (T)

1. The dispute in these cases is about the hot rolled products less than 3 mm in thickness and less than 75 mm in width assessed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Patiala as hoops under tariff item No. 26AA(ii); the manufacturers had asked for their classification as bars under Tariff Item No. 26AA(ia).

2. The Collector (Appeals) wrote an excellent order in which all the points of dispute have been discussed thoroughly; it is hardly necessary to go anywhere else to understand the dispute. By his order No. 126 to H4-CE/CHG/85, dated 23-2-1985 he approved the assessment made by the Assistant Collector and ruled that the products were assessable as hoops. He was fair enough however, to record that at the relevant time there was no definition in the tariff for different iron and steel products and, therefore, the issue in question would have to be decided by taking into account the meaning of these terms as they were understood in the trade, although he said that it was clear from the description that the goods were covered by the definition hoops all sorts. The Collector (Appeals) relied on the IS 1956-62 (2nd Reprint May 1975) which defines hoop as follows :-

HOOP (baling, Hoop Iron) - A hot rolled flat product, rolled in rectangular section of thickness less than 3 mm and width less than 75 mm.

Apparently the specification of the product in question squarely falls within the above definition, according to the Collector (Appeals). He then went to the definition of the hoop and strips in heading No. 73.12 of the BTN which defines them as :

rolled products with sheared or unsheared edges, of rectangular section, of a thickness not exceeding 6 millimetres, of width not exceeding 500 millimeters and of such dimensions that the thickness does not exceed one-tenth of the width in straight strips, coils or flattened coils.

3. In his discussion the learned Collector took the question of the criterion of the nature of the mill. The manufacturers claim that their mill is only a merchant/bar mill and is not able to produce goods like hoops and strips. The learned counsel for the manufacturers Mr. Bedi stressed this point very strongly saying that this it is a technical fact that these goods are classed by the type of mill in which they are produced. He pointed out that the Board had given instructions to this effect in tariff advice No. 4/67 to the effect that flats and bars are products of section mill, whereas plates and sheets are products of flat/strips mill. The learned counsel also pointed out that the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi also in his order No. V/26AA(2)/41l/CE/67, dated 15-2-1967 re: Jai Bharat Iron and Steel Rolling Mill held that the nature of the mill was a criterion to decide the nature of the product manufactured. The Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Amritsar came to the same conclusion in his order No. 2-CE/84, dated 14-2-1984 holding that classification of a product as strip depended on the nature of the mill through which it is rolled. And in a very detailed order, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad in order No. V/26AA(17)-49/78/8390, dated 11-11-1980 wrote to the same effect and said that there is more than a grain of truth in the arguments that the mill should receive sufficient attention when such products are to be classified. In order No. 1115 to 1123 of 1978 the government of India ruled that products referred to as pattis in commercial parlance made in a place other than a strip mill, by hot -cold - rolling process from scrap cuttings of duty paid unused, rerolled rods/billets would not be classifiable as "strip" under Item 26AA(iii) but under Item 26AA(ia) CET. The Collector (Appeals) of Central Excise, New Delhi in his order C.No. 289-CE/APPL/KNP, dated 17-9-1983 ordered that products with thickness not exceeding 3 mm and width between 20 and 25 mm should be assessed as bars. In tariff advice 31/78, dated 15-6-1978 the Board decided that the s