2007 (11) TMI 434 - SC - Central Excise

Classification - whether the criss-cross patches of vulcanized rubber manufactured by the appellant is classifiable under sub-heading 4008.21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 as claimed by the Revenue or under sub-heading 4016.99 as claimed by the assessee appellant - Held that - Order set aside and remanded matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for considering whether the process being followed by the manufactures appeals are allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues: Classification of criss-cross patches of vulcanized rubber under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis:
The main issue in this case revolves around the classification of criss-cross patches of vulcanized rubber manufactured by the appellant. The dispute is whether the said product should be classified under sub-heading 4008.21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, as contended by the Revenue, or under sub-heading 4016.99, as claimed by the appellant.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) classifying the criss-cross patches of vulcanized rubber under sub-heading 4008.21, in favor of the Revenue's claim.

The appellant argued that identical rubber patches were classified differently by the Department under sub-heading 4016.99, citing specific orders in support of this contention. However, the Tribunal did not address this argument in its decision.

Referring to a previous case involving similar circumstances, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of uniformity in classification decisions. The Court held that the Tribunal should have examined whether the product and process of another manufacturer, who was allegedly producing the same product, were the same as that of the appellant. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's decision and remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further consideration.

In light of the precedent set by the previous case, the Supreme Court directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to evaluate whether the processes followed by other manufacturers were similar to that of the appellant. The classification of the product manufactured by these other manufacturers under sub-heading 4016.99 was to be determined before assessing the classification of the appellant's product.

Ultimately, the appeals were allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a comprehensive review, with no costs imposed on either party.