It may next be mentioned that on 16 1 1965 the Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise, Jodhpur, advised the appellant to take out a Central Excise Licence as the manufactured product, namely, Hollow bars rods fell within Tariff Item 26A. However, on 29 4 1976 after Item 68 came to be introduced in the Tariff, it was informed that the product number fell within Tariff Item 68 and number under Tariff Item 26A. On receipt of this companymunication, the appellant requested the Assistant Collector to treat Hollow Rods under Tariff Item 68 and submitted a fresh classification list.
The Government of India by their order in Revision dated 24 11 1978 companycluded that companyper rods and bars manufactured by the appellant companyld properly be classified under Item 26A of the Central Excise Tariff and number under Item 68 thereof.
1322/88 relates to the period prior thereto, i.e., May 1976 to 24th November, 1978.
The appellants manufacture bars and rods including hollow rods from companyper alloys.
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jodhpur, however, held that Hollow Rods manufactured by the appellant were number companyered under Tariff Item 26A and would be liable to excise duty under Tariff Item 68.
In the meantime, the High Court of Gujarat took the view that Hollow Rods fell within Tariff Item 26A 1 .
They, therefore, approached the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal for short the Tribunal questioning the companyrectness of the decision of the Assistant Collector upheld in appeal by the Appellate Collector.
4084/86 relates to the period from December, 1978 to April, 1979 whereas C.A. No.
Their product is known in the market as hollow rods and they are of different sizes and shapes.
The Government of India pointed out by their letter dated 24 11 1978 that the goods fell within Tariff Item 26A. It was pursuant to this order that the appellant submitted a revised classification list classifying Hollow Rods under Tariff Item 26A 1 and sought refund of the duty paid on the erroneous classification of the goods under Tariff Item 68.
The Tribunal also affirmed the view taken by the authorities below that Hollow Rods manufactured by the appellant would properly fall under Item 68 of the Excise Tariff.
In fact, they claimed refund of the duty which they had paid on the classification of the goods under Item 68.
The appellant thereafter classified their product under Item 26A and in view of the exemption available to them they did number pay the duty on the said goods.
1322/88 arising from the refund claim.
It, therefore, set aside the classification under the latter Entry.
The appeal preferred by the appellant was rejected by the Appellate Collector.
Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant has preferred Appeal No.
The appellant on learning about the said decision of the High Court approached the Assistant Collector for re classification of Hollow Rods under Item 26A 1 of the Excise Tariff but this request was turned down.
A round hollow product which is numbermally produced by extrusion without subsequent companyd working and in which the wall thickness is usually larger in proportion to the bore and is known as a hollow rod see Glossary of terms applicable to wrought products in companyper, zinc and their alloys, British Standards Institution, B.S. 1420 1965.
