ORDER
Joyti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The short point that arises for consideration in the above appeal filed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay is the correct classification of the product described by the appellants who are manufacturers of Copper and Copper Alloys falling under T.I. 26A, as “Bars any size loosely called as flat or strips in crude form Block Oxidised and rolled out of duty paid copper and copper alloy wire bars”- the appellants claim that the product is classifiable under T.I. 26A(ia) of the Central Excise Tariff with the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 119/66, dated 16-7-1966 as amended from time to time while according to the department, the product in dispute is a strip classifiable under T.I. 26A(2).
2. None appeared on behalf of the appellants in spite of issue of notice for to-day’s hearing. We proceed to hear the learned DR and decide the matter.
3. The case of the appellants is that, in the absence of any definition of strip contained in the Central Excise Tariff, the commercial parlance is relevant for deciding whether the item in question is a strip or a bar. He also relied upon the definition of ‘strip’ as given in the ISI Glossary of Terms for Copper and Coper Alloys – IS 3288 (Part I) 1965 whcih is as follows :
“2.13 Strip-rolled flat product, over 0.16 mm and upto and including 10 mm thick, but of any width and generally not cut to length, supplied usually in coils, but also flat or folded. Strips of width exceeding 600 mm is often called wide strip.”
The appellants contend that their product cannot be called as strips because they are not rectangular or square. On the other hand, the case of the department, as represented by the learned DR, is that, even according to the appellants own description in the classification list, the product is known in the market as a strip. It is a rolled flat product (the appellants themselves have submitted in the classification list that the product is loosely called as flat); the product is a manufactured product as it is the result of the rolling of wire bars and hence falls squarely within T.I. 26A(2).
4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. For a proper appreciation of the case, we reproduce below T.I. 26A as it stood during the material period :-
“26A. Copper and Copper alloys containing not less than fifty percent by weight of copper. –
(1) In any crude form including ingots, bars, blocks slabs, billets, shots and pellets.
(2) Wire bars, wire rods and castings, not otherwise specified.
(3) Manufactures, the following, namely Flats sheets, circles, strips and foils in any form, (sic)
(4) Pipes and tubes.”
5. From the above, it would be seen that wire bars and wire rods not otherwise specified, fall under T.I. 26A(ia) whereas T.I. 26A(2) covers specified manufactured products namely plates, sheets, strips, etc. The item in dispute is not the direct product of a ore-based copper and copper alloys industry as the crude copper and copper alloys had already become copper and copper alloy wire, out of which the product under reference was manufactured by rolling. Hence they no longer remain as bars. The appellants themselves decribe the item as strips or flats. There is no information regarding the size or thickness of the products so as to consider their exclusion from the ISI definition of strips. Further the appellants have not substantiated their claim for classification of the product in dispute as a bar under T.I. 26A(ia). In these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the findings of the lower Appellate authority that the disputed item is a strip falling for classification under T.I. 26A(2). Hence the impugned order is upheld and the appeal rejected.