TMI Blog1992 (12) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Succinctly stated the whole case revolves around the classification of "bright steel bars" of stainless steel, including from austenitic variety, for the purpose of Drawback Schedule i.e. whether the same shall go under sub-serial No. 3606 or 3803 of the Schedule [latter classification was given by Collector (Appeals)]. The aforesaid sub-serials of the Drawback Schedule laying down rate of duty drawback on exports to which an exporter is entitled read as follows at the relevant time (w.e.f. 1-6-1988) :- 3606 : All types of bright steel bars shaftings. Rs. 395/- PMT 3803 : Articles made of stainless steel including stainless steel castings, not otherwise specified, made of austenitic variety of stainless steel. Rs. 8.90 per Kg. 4. Prior to 1-6-1988 the relevant entry was ss-3607 corresponding to ss-3606. However with effect from 1-6-1989, the entries in the Schedule were changed to the following :- 3606 : All types of bright bars and shaftings; (i) of stainless steel; Rs. 1,090/- PMT (ii) All others. Rs. 540/- PMT 3803: Vacant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retation of Customs Tariff was relevant [he, however, clarified that he was resorting to these Rules of Interpretation only because in the grounds of review the applicant Collector has himself relied upon the definition of stainless steel (vide ground-2) as given in the Customs Tariff]. Shri Lakshmi Kumaran further stated that under Rule 3(a) ibid even material or substance could as well be a part of the description of the article; that in that sense both the sub-serial Nos. 3606 and 3803 became equally specific and, therefore, applying Rule 3(c) sub-serial No. 3803 being latter in the Schedule should be preferred; that even Customs Tariff distinugishes between steel and stainless steel; that thus ss-3803 ibid covered his product. He quoted the judgment reported as 1983 UPTC (807) of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Industrial Mill Store to prove that stainless steel was not covered by iron and steel at least as per the Central Sales Tax Act. 9. Government have gone through the facts of the case and arguments advanced by parties. 10. In so far as respondent's plea that Asstt. Collector was lacking jurisdiction, while confirming the demand under Rule 14 of Drawback Rules is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne adjective alone be preferred to total exclusion of the rest as done by the appellate authority? That is not acceptable. The argument by the Collector (Appeals) is that if sub-serial 3606 was to include stainless steel bars a distinction would have been made between bright bars made from mild steel and others from stainless steel with different rates of Drawback. But it is observed that this (separate rating) is what exactly has happened vide the amendment to sub-serial No. 3606 in the Schedule of 1-6-1989. It logically follows, therefore, by the above argument of the Collector (Appeals) himself, that sub-serial No. 3606 included bright bars of stainless steel as well (to be allowed Drawback at uniform rate with other) and not merely of 'mild steel' as he has held. 14. Next, the words "all types" in entry under sub-serial No. 3606 are also material. They encompass every type of bright steel bar. The point that arises for consideration was whether these words qualify the words bright steel or bars or both. In as much as there is no separate entry of steel bars anywhere in the Drawback Schedule and irrespective of dimensional features or cross sections or form, bars will remain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Govt. hold that unless a category is specifically excluded, steel shall include stainless steel. 16. It is accordingly felt that in die scheme of Drawback Schedule, Collector (Appeals) prima facie erred in holding that the words "all types" in sub-serial No. 3606 reflected only the dimensional distinction and not different grades of steel such as mild steel, Stainless, carbon, austenitic steel etc.. 17. This brings us to the other grounds taken by Collector (Appeals) viz. adopting of quantum of duty inputs vis-a-vis the rates of Drawback as a guide or yard-stick for classification of goods under the Drawback Schedule, Govt. will not like to endorse it except and only to the limited extent of its being of peripheral or secondary consideration in support of a particular classification. But certainly not to counter one based on clear wordings of entries or other accepted principles of interpretation. In that this case is clearly covered and can be decided by the concepts of market parlance and specific entry overruling general (as discussed hereinafter) any discussion on duty inputs as a counter argument is not permissible. For, neither the field staff is equipped and acquaint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bars and that is the undisputed position. Even otherwise, as stated above, the universal rule is that a specific entry always overrules a general entry. Article being a general description will undoubtedly yield to specific description (bars). In this view of the matter, learned Collector (Appeals) certainly erred in holding that stainless steel bright bars were articles (page-19, of the order qua ss-3803). When two different descriptions or words are used then they have to be given their natural and separate meanings because different words are used with a definite intention to distinguish them. 20. This brings us to yet another important question viz. concept of market parlance. Both the Collector (Appeals) in his order and the Respondents in their reply have dwelt upon the concept of market parlance. The latter have also quoted certain case law (e.g. United Offset (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Customs [1988 (38) E.L.T. 568 (SC)]. It is submitted by the respondents that neither the term 'steel' nor 'stainless steel' have been defined in the Drawback Schedule. It is a well settled law that the entries in the Tariff/Schedules are not to be interpreted on the basis of scientifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not germane as in that case it is by legal definition itself that stainless steel was ennunciated separately from Iron and Steel which position is not obtaining here]. 23. During the course of the hearing and in all fairness to the respondents one point which engaged particular attention of the revisionary authority was whether specific description of metal i.e. stainless steel austenitic variety (sub-serial 3803) will not overrule that general description of steel (sub-serial 3606). In short complexities arise from the fact that while at one place (ss-3606) it is the description (bar) which is specific, at the other place (ss-3803) it is the material that is specific (of austenitic variety). It is its considered view that such a question will arise only if other things were the same say for instance if a decision was to be taken when two entries read 'bars of steel' versus 'bars of stainless steel'. Since any product is first given its name according to its physical description i.e. bar, angle or rod, it will have to be first decided as to by what name the item is called. Only when the description is common that question of considering material composition will arise, part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
