1996 (12) TMI 49 - SC - Central Excise

Whether the said rings punched from asbestos boards and two types of asbestos fabrics, namely, special fabrics in a coil of continuous length and M.R. Grey in rolls fell under Item 22F of the Central Excise Tariff which, so far as is relevant? Held that - The Revenue sought to make the said rings dutiable as asbestos articles. The affidavit evidence of a dealer in asbestos was of some relevance. So was the affidavit evidence that explained the character and use of the said rings. It was wrong of the Tribunal to find that the deponents of these affidavits were not the right persons to give opinion on the type of the products with which it was concerned. Regretably, the Tribunal s order under appeal shows that it was not fully conscious of the dispassionate judicial function it was expected to perform, and it must be quashed. The appeal is allowed and the order under appeal is quashed.

Summary

Issues: Classification of asbestos rings under Central Excise Tariff Item 22F, Marketability of the rings, Onus of proof on Revenue, Tribunal's role in assessing evidence

Classification of Asbestos Rings under Central Excise Tariff Item 22F:
The appeal concerned rings punched from asbestos boards and two types of asbestos fabrics. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal upheld that the rings fell under Item 22F of the Central Excise Tariff, pertaining to mineral fibers and yarn. The Tribunal rejected the contention that the rings were intermediate products in brake linings and clutch facings manufacture, emphasizing they were fully manufactured asbestos products.

Marketability of the Rings:
The appellants argued that the rings were brittle, fragile, and not marketable. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating the rings were fully manufactured asbestos products and marketable to specific industries like brake linings and clutch facings manufacturers. The Tribunal dismissed the affidavits provided by the appellants, asserting they were not the right persons to opine on the products' nature.

Onus of Proof on Revenue:
The Supreme Court highlighted that the onus of proving the rings fell under Item 22F lay with the Revenue. Since the Revenue failed to provide evidence supporting its classification, the onus remained undischarged. Even if the Tribunal rejected the appellants' evidence, the appeal should have been allowed due to the Revenue's failure to meet its burden of proof.

Tribunal's Role in Assessing Evidence:
The Court criticized the Tribunal for making assumptions and suppositions without proper evidence. It emphasized that the Tribunal's role was not to assess the marketability or nature of the rings but to rely on evidence presented. The Court found the Tribunal's order lacking in dispassionate judicial function and quashed it, stating that remanding the matter for reevaluation was unnecessary due to the absence of evidence from the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the Tribunal's order, and did not award costs. The judgment underscored the importance of the Revenue meeting the onus of proof, the Tribunal's duty to rely on evidence, and the need for a dispassionate judicial approach in such matters.