Ksonal and Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

.....of strips appearing in clause xvi of the classification. this plea was negatived by the assistant collector. their appeal was rejected by the collector (appeals) who upheld the classification of the product under ti 25(12)(i) of the erstwhile tariff.3. we notice that the issue has been agitated before the tribunal in number of judgments and the case was taken up again by a third member bench as in the case of collector of central excise v. kamlesh indus.and ors. as reported in 1995 (60) ecr 524. the tribunal after reconsideration of the judgment held that once there is uncertainty in determining the nature of the product on the basis of dimensions, classification should be on the basis of mill in which it is manufactured. applying this criterion the tribunal held that the product patti or pattas manufactured by the respondents (assessees) are not "strips" but "pieces of roughly shaped by rolling or forging of iron and steel not elsewhere specified" falling under ti 26aa(ia) before 1-8-1983 and ti 25(8) after 1-8-1983 and then under 7208.00 of the new tariff. in view of the tribunal's considered judgment holding products to be as "pieces roughly shaped by rolling or forging of iron and steel not elsewhere specified" the lower authorities classification under ti 25(12)(i) is not sustainable and that the assessee's claim for classification under ti 25(8) of the erstwhile tariff is required to be upheld.4. following the ratio of the judgment, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.