2002 (10) TMI 482 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods described as "waste of electrical insulation tapes" under different headings.

In this case, the primary issue for consideration was the classification of goods labeled as "waste of electrical insulation tapes." The manufacturers, acting as job workers for Bhor Industries, produced goods described as tape ends, tape scrap, side cuts, and tape waste. Initially, the manufacturers cleared these goods under heading 8546.00 as electrical insulators. However, the department proposed classifying the goods under Heading 39.15 as waste or scrap of plastic. The Assistant Collector acknowledged that the final product was PVC electrical insulation tapes but agreed with the classification under the respective heading of waste. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, noting that the tapes contained adhesive properties and were not sold or used as electrical insulating tapes. The department appealed this decision, leading to the present case.

The central argument revolved around whether the goods in question, sold by the manufacturers to scrap dealers, should be classified as waste of insulating tapes under the heading in which the tapes are classifiable. The Tribunal rejected this argument, emphasizing that waste, regardless of origin, is classified based on its material composition. In this case, since the predominant material was plastic, the correct classification was deemed to be as a plastic product. The Tribunal also addressed the contention that since the goods were made of polyvinyl chloride, they should be considered insulating tapes. However, referencing a prior judgment, the Tribunal clarified that not all polyvinyl chloride tapes possess insulating properties, and the mere presence of PVC does not automatically classify a product as an insulating tape.

Furthermore, the Tribunal dismissed the argument that the goods retained their classification as insulating tapes despite being purchased by scrap dealers. It was deemed implausible that essential safety products like insulating tapes would be bought from scrap dealers unless in emergencies. The Tribunal also refuted the claim that the department's appeal exceeded the scope of the show cause notice, as both the notice and appeal centered on the fact that the goods were not sold or used as insulating tapes. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and reinstating the Assistant Commissioner's decision.