It may at this stage be mentioned that when the appellant submitted a classification list they stated that the goods in question did number attract any excise duty whatsoever and they were neither calots number pellets and were intermediate products number marketable but used for captive companysumption only.
Against the said order the department went in appeal to the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal CEGAT pointing out that calots were a distinct item which attracted duty under Tariff Item 26B 2a and hence the appellant was liable to pay duty under that head.
That was because it was the companytention of the appellant that the goods manufactured by them at the intermediate stage did number fall within the description of pellets or calots and, therefore, the same was number taxable at all.
It may be numbericed that the appellant was paying excise duty on the intermediate product under Tariff Item 26B 1 under protest.
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, clubbed the two items described as calots and pellets of zinc together under Tariff Items 26B 1 and 26B 2a .
The Tribunal came to the companyclusion that the goods in dispute were number pellets and, therefore, they were calots chargeable to duty under Tariff Item 26B 2a .
The tribunal after stating what was meant by pellets from the dictionaries came to the companyclusion that the intermediate product was number pellets.
In this view that the tribunal took the tribunal held that the appellant was number liable to excise duty under Tariff Item 26B 2a .
He, therefore, set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and held that the goods in question companyld number be assessed to duty under Tariff Item 26B 2a .
The Collector of Central Excise Appeals reversed this finding holding that they were number synonymous and the decision of the Assistant Collector suffered from want of reasons.
He took the view that classification of pellets companyld number be taken as of calots under Tariff Item 26B 2a .
The Tribunal also came to the companyclusion that it was true that the calots were number marketable and were used by the appellants for captive companysumption only.
It is this finding of the tribunal which is in dispute.
Hence, it was companytended that the goods in question were number classifiable under either Tariff Item 26B 1 or 26B 2a .
