1983 (1) TMI 260 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of rubber tubing under item 16A(3) of Central Excise Tariff.
2. Exemption under Notification No. 197/67-C.E. for rubber tubing as component parts of machinery articles.

Analysis:
1. The first issue in consideration was whether the rubber tubing manufactured by the appellants falls under item 16A(3) of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants argued that the rubber tubing, designed for sealing glass and louver shutters of railway coaches, was not meant for conveying liquids, gases, or air, hence should not be liable for duty under item 16A(3) CET. The Department contended that the specific nature of item 16A(3) CET covered the goods, and since railway coaches are not machinery articles, the exemption under Notification No. 197/67-CE did not apply.

2. The Tribunal examined the sample of the rubber tubing presented by the appellants and found that it indeed met the description of unhardened vulcanised rubber tubing, commonly used for conveying substances. Despite being designed for sealing purposes in railway coaches, the goods were still identified and marketed as rubber tubing. The Tribunal emphasized that the intended use did not alter the classification of the product, especially when it met the criteria of rubber tubing. Additionally, the argument for exemption under Notification No. 197/67-CE was dismissed as the exemption was limited to rubber piping and tubing meant for machinery articles, excluding railway coaches from this category. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Department's stance that the rubber tubing was within the scope of item 16A(3) CET and not eligible for the exemption provided in the notification.

3. In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal, affirming that the rubber tubing manufactured by the appellants was subject to duty under item 16A(3) of the Central Excise Tariff and did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 197/67-C.E.