1982 (12) TMI 199 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the intermediary product "Master Batch Chips" in the manufacture of Marblex Tiles is excisable.
2. Whether the "Master Batch Chips" is assessable to duty as a plastic material under Item 15A(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis:
The case involved two primary issues: the excisability of the intermediary product "Master Batch Chips" and its classification as a plastic material for duty assessment. The product, a mixture used in the production of Marblex Tiles, contained polyvinyl Chloride, a Copolymer, constituting 15% of the total ingredients. The appellant argued that "Master Batch Chips" was not excisable as it was a mixture of raw materials and did not qualify as a plastic material under Tariff Item No. 15A(1)(ii). The authorities contended that the product was assessable to duty as it was manufactured for internal use and contained a substantial amount of Copolymer, meeting the criteria of a plastic material.

The burden of proof regarding the manufacture and classification of the product lay with the taxing authority. The tribunal noted that the Department failed to establish the product's distinctive name, character, or use to prove its manufacture. Additionally, the Chemical Examiner's statement alone was insufficient to classify the product as a plastic material under the relevant tariff entry. The tribunal emphasized the necessity of satisfying the requirements prescribed by the tariff entry for classification.

Referring to a previous case concerning Marblex Tiles, where the court ruled that the tiles were not classifiable as plastic articles due to the low percentage of plastic material, the tribunal concluded that the "Master Batch Chips" could not be considered a plastic material either. As a result, the appeal was allowed, determining that the product was not excisable at the relevant time under the specified tariff item. The appellant was entitled to any consequential reliefs.

In conclusion, the tribunal's decision hinged on the lack of evidence establishing the product's manufacture and classification as a plastic material under the relevant tariff entry. The tribunal's analysis emphasized the importance of meeting the prescribed requirements for duty assessment and classification under the Central Excise Tariff.