1984 (1) TMI 72 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of corrugated roofing under Central Excise Tariff Item 15A(2).
2. Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 68 of 1971.
3. Relevance of trade parlance in determining the classification.
4. Inclusion of fibre glass reinforced polyester roofings under the term "plastic sheets."
5. Procedural aspects of evidence submission by the appellants.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Corrugated Roofing under Central Excise Tariff Item 15A(2):
The primary issue in the appeal was whether the corrugated roofing manufactured by the appellants could be classified as "sheets" under Item 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff. The Excise Authorities, including the Assistant Collector and the Central Government in review, concluded that the fibre glass reinforced polyester corrugated roofings were indeed sheets and thus covered by Item 15A(2). The appellants argued that a sheet must be relatively thin and flat, and since their roofings were corrugated, they could not be classified as sheets. However, the court found that the term "sheet" in trade parlance could include corrugated materials, and the appellants failed to provide evidence to the contrary.

2. Entitlement to Exemption under Notification No. 68 of 1971:
The appellants sought exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 68 of 1971, which exempts certain plastic articles from duty. The exemption does not apply to rigid plastic boards, sheeting, sheets, and films, whether laminated or not. The Assistant Collector and the Central Government held that the corrugated roofings did not qualify for the exemption as they were considered sheets. The court upheld this view, noting that the appellants did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that their product should be exempted.

3. Relevance of Trade Parlance in Determining the Classification:
The court emphasized that the classification of items under Customs and Excise Tariffs should be based on trade parlance rather than dictionary definitions. The appellants failed to provide evidence on how their product was regarded in trade parlance. The court noted that it is well-settled law that the meaning of terms in tariff items should be understood as they are in trade parlance, and the burden was on the appellants to provide such evidence, which they did not.

4. Inclusion of Fibre Glass Reinforced Polyester Roofings under the Term "Plastic Sheets":
The appellants contended that their roofings, made from a mixture of polyester and fibre glass, should not be classified as plastic sheets. The court rejected this argument, stating that no evidence was provided to show that such mixtures were not regarded as plastic articles in trade parlance. The court also noted that the appellants had not raised this contention before any of the Excise Authorities, and thus it could not be considered at this stage.

5. Procedural Aspects of Evidence Submission by the Appellants:
The court criticized the appellants for not leading any evidence regarding the thickness, size, extent of corrugation, or trade parlance classification of their roofings during the review proceedings. The court highlighted that it was the responsibility of the appellants to provide such evidence, especially since they sought the benefit of an exemption. The court also mentioned that if any assessment proceedings were still pending, the appellants could still present this evidence.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, with the court upholding the classification of the corrugated roofings as plastic sheets under Item 15A(2) and denying the exemption under Notification No. 68 of 1971. The court emphasized the importance of trade parlance in classification and the necessity for appellants to provide relevant evidence. There was no order as to costs.