Per J.H. Joglekar :

These two appeals arise out of a common order and, therefore, they are taken up together for disposal.

2. The assessees manufactured angles, shapes and section of iron or non-alloy steel cold formed or cold finished and sought classification under sub-heading 7216.20 vide classification list w.e.f. 1.3.89. The Assistant Collector, after issuing a notice and after hearing the arguments of the assessees determined the classification of the goods as parts of structures under heading 7308. The Collector (Appeals), having upheld this classification, the present appeal is before us.

3. Shri V. Sridharan, ld. Advocate stated that his clients were manufacturing the same goods earlier when they were classified under Tariff item nos. 25 and 26 of the old CET. The department had sought to classify such products, which were admittedly used in residential, etc. structures under Item 68. He stated that in order No. 639/86-B1 dt. 6.10.86, the Tribunal had determined that even if the goods are of specific applications for use in structures, they continued to remain iron and steel products. He, further, referred to the Tribunal judgement in the case of Tube Investment of India Ltd. reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 291 in which the Tribunal held that cold formed sections not further worked to be used in shutters would fall under heading 72.16 and not under heading 73.08. He claimed that the officers were advised by the Board vide circular No. 46/90 dt. 21.11.90 (F.No. 139/49/90 CX 4) as to the distinction between these products falling under the alternate classifications. Shri Sridharan claimed that angles, shapes and section would continue to fall under the parent heading unless they were prepared for use in these products by undertaking further processes such as punching, elevating, etc. The goods when they left the assessees premises had not undergone such further processes as would make then identifiable parts of structure.

4. Ld. S.D.R. referred to the statement of Shri Mahana, General Manager of the assessee unit in which a specific claim was made that the impugned goods were used in general construction and engineering industry. He stated that, therefore, classification under 7308 was warranted as that item gave a more specific description of the goods. As regards the Tribunal judgement dated 6.10.86, he claimed it of no relevance in the present proceedings because in the earlier tariff, there was no entry which specifically catered to such products designed for use in structures and that in the absence of such specific heading, the Tribunal permitted the parent classification to continue in preference to residual classification under T.I. 68. It was his claim that heading 7808 provided the correct description and therefore, the Collector's order was legal.

5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have also perused the cited judgements as well as the entries in the Tariff.

6. The end-use does not become the key for classification of a product unless such intention is manifested in the Tariff entry itself. This was the view expressed by the Tribunal in their judgement in the case of National Insulated Cable Co. Vs. C.C.E. reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 109. Tariff heading 7308 speaks of parts of structures as against the articles of iron and steel under heading 72. In a sense, therefore, the end use is material for determining the classification.

7. Both headings 7216 and 7308 refer to "angles, shapes and sections". However, qualifying clause exists in the later heading and that is "prepared for use in structures". During the hearing, a question was asked to the ld. Advocate to specify whether the word "prepared for use" would cover only those products having come into existence as articles falling under heading 72.16 and further worked upon or whether the word would also include those angles, shapes and sections, which would otherwise have fallen under heading 7216, when manufactured for the specific purpose