- (1.) The first respondent/Company (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner) is manufacturing M.S. bends, special pipes like Reducer Pipes, Adopted Pipes, Cap pieces, socket and pipes, spigot pipes etc. They have entered into a contract with TWAD Board for supply of MS pipes and supplies of various sizes as for the water supply schemes at Pudukottai, Madurai and Coimbatore. The writ petitioner has classified the M.S. Bend pipes and other M.S. pipes under Chapter Sub-heading 7305.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and availed the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 175/88, dated 13-5-1988, as amended by notification No. 66/89, 63/91, 33/92 and 43/93, for effecting clearances at the rate of 12.5%. Though initially, the third respondent had approved such classification, subsequently show-cause notices were issued for the period from November 1992 to May 1994, to the writ petitioner/company as to why their products M.S. Bends, Gap Pieces, Specials etc. should not be classified under Chapter Heading 7307 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, attracting the Central Excise Duty at 15%, as their products are utilised for connecting PSC/MS/CI/AC pipes to make positive water tight joints and are actually pre-fittings as evidenced in the contract between the first respondent company and the TWAD Board, wherein the requirement is only for welded mild steel fittings and specials of various sizes and the benefit under notification No. 175/88 as amended should not be denied to them since the Chapter Sub-heading No. 7307 of the Central Excise Tariff Act is not covered by the exemption notification. The first respondent/company was also asked to show-cause as to why the abatement claimed by them for transport charges from the contracted price should not be denied and differential duty of Rs. 28,089/- should not be demanded under Section 11A in respect of clearances for the period January to May 1994. For the show-cause notices, replies were filed by the first respondent/company and the appellant, after granting personal hearing, confirmed the demand in respect of seven show cause notices. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent/company preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and since the said authority has also rejected the appeal, the first respondent/company has filed a further appeal to the second respondent/Tribunal in Order Nos. 818 to 825 of 1997. The Tribunal, placing reliance on various dictionaries and the definitions given in the Harmonised System of Nomenclature (in short HSN') has observed that the disputed goods should be classified only as pipe fittings' and has thus dismissed the appeals, by the order dated 24-3-1997 [1997 (93) E.L.T. 369 (Tribunal)]. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent/company has filed V.P. No. 10546 of 1997, praying to quash the order of the second respondent/Tribunal and to consequently direct the appellant/Revenue herein to classify the bent pipes under sub-heading 7305.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
(2.) The learned single Judge, after hearing both parties has allowed the writ petition [2006 (203) E.L.T. 197 (Mad.)], which is assailed in this writ appeal by the Revenue.
(3.) We have heard Mr. T.S. Sivagnanam, learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr. Aravind P. Datar, learned senior counsel for the first respondent/company.;