1989 (12) TMI 46 - SC - Central Excise

Whether rubber products which are capable of being used for retreading or resoling of tyres but are only used for repairs would attract duty or not? Held that - The notification of 1973 was one in which various amendments were carried out to a series of notifications relating to various items and does not contain anything to suggest that it was only a clarification that was intended to be given and not a prospective amendment of the previous notification. As already mentioned, the fact that the appellant is using or marketing the products for use, only for repairing tyres and conveyor belts is not controverted. In these circumstances, we are of opinion that the appellant assessee was entitled to exemption under the notification. In one sense, any rubber compound has a composition which theoretically permits it to be used either for repair purposes or for resoling or retreading of tyres. But the assessee s contention is that the product marketed by it has not the physical dimensions or technical properties to be capable of use for retreading or resoling. Also, the notification talks of products used for resoling and retreading of tyres and that is not the case here. The notification thus imports a limitation on the exclusion from the exemption specified in the parenthetical clause of the notification. That exclusion is only in respect of compounds used for resoling or retreading. Allow this appeal and hold that the assessee is entitled to the exemption prayed for.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of exemption notification under Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 for rubber products used in repairing tires and conveyor belts.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of cushion repair compound, tread repair compound, and cover compound, claimed exemption from duty under Notification No. 71 of 1968. The Superintendent of Central Excise rejected the claim, stating the goods could be used for resoling or retreading of tires. The Collector of Central Excise upheld the decision, leading to a revision petition to the Central Government. The Central Government dismissed the petition, citing that the compounds in question were assessable to duty under Item No. 16A. The appellant contended that their products were only for repairing tires and conveyor belts, not for resoling or retreading. They relied on past notifications and circulars to support their argument.

The appellant argued that the compounds were not used for resoling or retreading, as per the exemption notification. They pointed out the specific wording changes in past notifications and circulars to emphasize the distinction between compounds used for repair versus resoling or retreading. The circular of 1966 clarified that rubber products used for repair purposes were exempt from duty, aligning with the appellant's position. The appellant's marketing and use of the products solely for repair purposes were undisputed.

The Court agreed with the appellant, stating that the notification aimed to exempt rubber products not commonly used for resoling or retreading tires. The Court referenced the circular of 1966 as a contemporaneous understanding of the exemption notification of 1964, indicating that products used solely for repair were intended to be exempt. The Court noted that the compounds marketed by the appellant lacked the physical dimensions and technical properties for resoling or retreading. The notification's language specified exclusion for compounds used for resoling or retreading, which did not apply to the appellant's products.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Central Government's order and holding that the appellant was entitled to the exemption claimed. The assessment was to be modified accordingly, with no costs imposed. The judgment clarified the interpretation of the exemption notification for rubber products used in repairing tires and conveyor belts, emphasizing the distinction from products used for resoling or retreading.