2003 (2) TMI 101 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Classification of Tarpaulin Cloth under Heading No. 52.06 or 59.06 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.
2. Determination of whether Tarpaulins were manufactured with or without the aid of power.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of Tarpaulin Cloth
The appeal raised the question of whether Tarpaulin Cloth should be classified under Heading No. 52.06 or 59.06 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Appellant argued that the impregnation, coating, or covering of the fabric should be visible to the naked eye for classification under Heading 59.06. The Chief Chemist's report indicated that the interstices between the yarns were not completely filled, and the warp and weft yarns were visible, suggesting no visible layer formation. The Circular emphasized the need for a visible formation of a layer on the fabric's surface. The Tribunal's decision in a similar case supported the classification under Heading 52.06, concluding that the Tarpaulin cloth did not fall under Heading 59.06 due to the absence of a visible layer formation.

Issue 2: Use of Power in Manufacturing Tarpaulins
Regarding the use of power in manufacturing Tarpaulins, the Collector confirmed the demand for duty on the entire quantity based on occasional power usage for stitching. The Appellant contended that generally, tarpaulins were stitched without the aid of power. However, evidence suggested the use of power during the manufacturing process. The Appellants failed to establish that tarpaulins were made without the aid of power, leading to the imposition of Central Excise duty. The question of eligibility for small scale exemption and the quantum of duty was left for the jurisdictional Commissioner to determine, with the Adjudicating Authority tasked with deciding the penalty issue after further submissions from the Appellants.

In conclusion, the judgment resolved the classification issue by determining that the Tarpaulin cloth manufactured by the Appellant fell under Heading 52.06. Additionally, it upheld the imposition of Central Excise duty due to the use of power in manufacturing tarpaulins, with further examination required for small scale exemption eligibility and penalty determination.