[Order per : S.S. Kang, Member (J)]. - Heard both sides.
2. The issue in respect of classification of Rockwool, Slagwool and products thereof were referred to the Larger Bench in view of the conflicting decisions of the Tribunal. The Tribunal in the case of Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd. v. CCE reported in held that these goods were classifiable under Heading 6807 of the Central Excise Tariff whereas in the case of CCE v. Rockwool (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in and in the case of NGP Industries Ltd. v. CCE reported in the same goods were held to be classifiable under Heading 6803 of Central Excise Tariff.
3. The contention of the Revenue is that the goods in question are marketed and known in the market as Slagwool, Rockwool and the same is evident from the invoices produced by the assessee. The contention is that in the trade parlance the name by which the product is known in the market is much more important than the characteristics and ingredients contained in the product. The Revenue also relied upon Rule 3(a) of the Rules of interpretation of Central Excise Tariff to submit that the heading which provides the specific description shall be preferred to heading providing general description. The Revenue also relied upon the Board’s Circular No. 587/24/2001-CX., dated 17-9-2001 whereby it was clarifying that slagwool, rockwool produced from blast furnace slag will be classifiable under Heading 6803 of Tariff even though contained more than 25% by weight of blast furnace slag.
4. The contention of the assessee is that the rockwool, slagwool and articles thereof which are under consideration contains red mud, press mud or blast furnace slag or combination by more than 25% by weight and this composition is not disputed by the Revenue. The contention is that in the year 1993 the Notification No. 36/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93 was issued by the Central Government exempted all goods falling under Chapter 68 of Tariff in which more than 25% by weight of red mud, press mud or blast furnace slag was present, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable on them and thereafter a Notification No. 8/96, dated 23-7-96 was issued giving exemption to the above mentioned goods. In the Budget of 1997 a separate sub-heading was also created as 6807.10 for goods in which red mud, press mud or blast furnace slag were used in excess of 25% by weight. By doing so the exemption granted under the above mentioned notifications was replaced with a lower rate of duty at 8% for goods falling under sub-heading 6807.10 of Tariff. The respondent also relied upon the Explanatory Notes to the Budget-1997. The respondents also contended that the Board’s circular issued contrary to the entries in the Tariff cannot relied upon by the Revenue for classification purposes.
5. For ready reference the relevant entries are reproduced below :-
| Heading No. | Sub-heading No. | Description of goods | Rate of duty |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
| 6803 | 6803.00 | Slagwool, rockwool and similar mineral wools | 18% |
| 6807 | | 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% |
6. The Revenue is not disputing the composition of the goods in question.
7. We find that the goods manufactured with the use of more than 25% by weight red mud, press mud or blast furnace slag were fully exempted by Notification No. 36/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93 and thereafter by Notification No. 8/96, dated 23-7-96. In the Budget 1997 a new Heading 6807 was enacted specifically for goods containing more than 25% by weight of red mud, press mud, blast furnace slag attracting rate of duty at 8%. In the Budget the explanatory notes explaining the chapter wise change provides that the existing entries of Sr. Nos. 68.3 of Notification No. 8/96-C.E. relating to goods of red mud, press mud or blast furnace slag are being withdrawn. These are being incorporated in the Tariff at sub-heading No. 6807.10. The tariff and effective rate of 8% shall henceforth be applicable to these items.
8. Further we find that sub-heading 6803.00 of Tariff covers rockwool without any qualification and therefore, all varieties of rockwool would get covered by this sub-heading. However, sub-heading No. 6807 of Tariff is also incorporated in the Tariff which covers the 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. As the goods in question is a rockwool/slagwool containing more than 25% by weight of blast furnace slag have been used will appropriately be classifiable under Heading 6807 of the Tariff. If we accept the arguments of the Revenue that all slagwool even those components slagwool/rockwool even containing more than 25% of blast furnace slag then this interpretation would render the first portion of Heading 68.07 of Tariff redundant.
9. In view of the above discussion, we find that sub-heading 6803 of Tariff would cover rockwool, in general whereas sub-heading 6807 will covers the variety of rockwool in which 25% by weight of red mud, blast furnace slag have been used. The issue referred to the Larger Bench is decided accordingly.
10. As no other issue is raised by the Revenue in these appeals, therefore, we take up the appeals for disposal. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the rockwool, slagwool and products thereof containing more than 25% by weight of red mud, press mud or blast furnace slag are classifiable under Heading 6807.10 of Central Excise Tariff. As the question referred to the Larger Bench is decided in favour of the assessee, therefore, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeals are dismissed.