Order
CA No. 4988 of 2003
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short “the Tribunal”) in Final Order No. 204 of 2002-D in Appeal No. E/964 of 2002-D dated 22-8-2002 (2003) 153 ELT 135 (Tri). By the impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal has accepted the assessee's stand that the goods, namely, slag-wool and rock-wool are to be classified under Chapter Sub-Heading 6807.10 by rejecting the stand of the Revenue that they are required to be classified under Sub-Heading 6803.00
2. The assessee had filed the classification declaration before the adjudicating authority, under Rule 173-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short “the Rules”), inter alia, claiming that the goods, namely, slag-wool and rock-wool are required to be classified under Chapter Sub-Heading 6807.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”) with effect from 9-6-1998.
3. A show-cause notice was issued to the assessee directing them to show cause as to why the goods in issue should not be classified under Chapter Sub-Heading 6803.00 and duty of 18% should not be charged and recovered from them under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11-A of the Act and as to why penalty should not be imposed under Rule 173-Q of the Rules. After receipt of the show-cause notice, the assessee filed its reply dated 16-11-1998, inter alia, contending that they are manufacturing “min-wool” using more than 25% of blast furnace slag by weight, right from 1993 onwards and they have been filing classification declarations mentioning this fact and such declarations so filed prior to 1997-1998 were accepted by the Department and, therefore, the goods in question require to be classified under Chapter Sub-Heading 6807.10 of the Act.
4. The adjudicating authority, after accepting the stand of the assessee, passed an order dated 31-1-2000, inter alia, holding that the appropriate classification of the goods in issue should be under Chapter Sub-Heading 6807.10 of the Act. The Revenue, being aggrieved by the classification so accepted by the adjudicating authority, had carried the matter by way of an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, who by its order dated 23-1-2002, allowed the Revenue's appeal and, thereby, declared that the goods in question are to be classified under Chapter Sub-Heading 6803.00 and not under Sub-Heading 6807.10, as claimed by the assessee.
5. The assessee had carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has allowed the assessee's appeal by its order dated 22-8-2002 and, thereby, restored the order passed by the adjudicating authority. It is the correctness or otherwise of the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal which is the subject-matter of the present appeal.
6. We need to notice the relevant entries under Chapter 68 of the Act and Sub-Heading 6803.00 and Sub-Heading 6807.10, etc. The same read as under:
Heading
Sub-Heading
Description of goods
Rate of duty
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
68.03
6803.00
Slag-wool, rock-wool and 18% similar wools
18%
***
68.07
Goods, in which more than 25% by weight of red mud, press mud or blast furnace slag or one or more of these materials, have been used; all other articles of stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, mica or of similar materials, not elsewhere specified or included.
6807.10
Goods, in which more than 25% by weight of red mud, press mud or blast furnace slag or one or more of these materials have been used.
8%
7. The rate of duty for the aforesaid goods if it is classified under Sub-Heading 6803.00 is at 18% and if it is classified under Sub-Heading 6807.10, is at 8%. Sub-Heading 6803.00 speaks of slag-wool, rock-wool and similar wools, whereas Sub-Heading 6807.10 speaks of goods in which more than 25% by weight, red mud, press mud or blast furnace slag or one or more of these materials is used.
8. Sub-Heading 6807.10 was introduced after the Budget of 1997. The period in question of this appeal is after 9-6-1998.
9. Shri R.P Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue would submit that when there is a specific heading/sub-heading wherein the goods, such as slag-wool, rock-wool and similar wools are enumerated, that entry requires to be applied and not the general entry or a residuary entry. The learned counsel also brings to our notice the Circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (for short “the Board”) dated 17-9-2001 to substantiate that the Board, after a detailed consideration of the claim and the counterclaim of the traders dealing in rock-wool and slag-wool, has specifically classified (sic clarified) that the aforesaid goods require to be classified under Sub-Heading 6803.00 and not under Sub-Heading 6807.10 Per contra, Shri Alok Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, justifies the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal.
10. We have already noticed the relevant entries with which we are concerned with in this appeal. No doubt there is a specific entry which speaks of slag-wool and rock-wool under Sub-Heading 6803.00, but there is yet another entry which is consciously introduced by the legislature under Sub-Heading 6807.10, which speaks of goods in which rock-wool, slag-wool and products thereof are manufactured by use of more than 25% by weight of blast furnace slag. It is not in dispute that the goods in question are those goods in which more than 25% by weight of one or more of red mud, press mud or blast furnace slag is used. If that be the case, then, in a classification dispute, an entry which is beneficial to the assessee requires to be applied and the same has been done by the adjudicating authority, which has been confirmed by the Tribunal. Alternatively, it can be said that Sub-Heading 6807.10 is specific to the goods in which more than 25% by weight, red mud, press mud or blast furnace slag is used. The heading is based entirely on material used in composition of goods. A tariff heading, based on composition of goods, is also a specific heading like a heading based on commercial nomenclature. Therefore, we are of the view that the goods in issue are appropriately classifiable under Sub-Heading 6807.10 of the tariff entry.
11. The learned Senior Counsel Shri Bhatt invites our attention to the circular/instructions issued by the Board. In our view, the departmental circulars are not binding on the assessee or quasi-judicial authorities or courts and therefore, in that view of the matter, the circular/instructions issued by the Board, would not assist them.
12. We may also notice that the Full Bench of the Tribunal in CCE v. Punj Star Insulation Fibre Co. (2004) 170 ELT 43 (Tri) has taken a view that the slag-wool and rock-wool would fall under Sub-Heading 6807.10 and not under Sub-Heading 6803.00 The judgment of the Tribunal has attained finality, since the Revenue has not questioned the same before the appropriate forum. This fact has been noticed by this Court while disposing of Civil Appeals Nos. 60-61 of 2003 in Rockwool (India) (P) Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs & Central Excise (2012) 7 SCC 188, decided on 7-5-2008.
13. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error whatsoever which would call for our interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
CAs Nos. 2504-05 of 2004
14. These appeals are also disposed of in terms of the observations and directions made by us today in the aforesaid order i.e CA No. 4988 of 2003. Ordered accordingly.