1983 (5) TMI 131 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of Cord Repair Fabrics, Pre-shaped Cord Patches, and Criss-Cross Patches under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved the classification of Cord Repair Fabrics, Pre-shaped Cord Patches, and Criss-Cross Patches under Item No. 16A(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

2. The appellants argued that the products should not be classified under Item No. 16A(2) as determined by the Central Excise authorities. They contended that the goods did not fall within the scope of plates, sheets, and strips of rubber as per the CET.

3. During the hearing, the appellants reiterated their submissions, emphasizing that the products did not meet the criteria of Item 16A(2) as per the CET. The Revenue argued that the products fell within the scope of the classification based on the terminology used in Item 16A(2) of the CET.

4. The appellants further argued that the terminology in Item 16A(2) was borrowed from the Customs Cooperation Council Nomenclature (CCCN), specifically headings 40.05 and 40.08. They referenced the Explanatory Notes of the CCCN to support their contention that the products should be classified differently under Heading No. 59.11 of the CCCN.

5. The Tribunal examined the language of Item No. 16A(2) of the CET, which included plates, sheets, and strips, whether combined with any textile material or not. The Tribunal noted that the CET should be interpreted based on its own nomenclature, and the presence of textile material such as rayon or nylon yarn agglomerated with rubber qualified as a textile material.

6. The appellants also argued that Cord Repair Fabrics were manufactured in rolls, not sheets, and should be classified differently. They contended that Pre-shaped Cord Patches and Criss-Cross Patches were made from Cord Repair Fabrics and should be classified under Item 68 of the CET Schedule based on the manufacturing process.

7. The Tribunal held that the classification of Cord Repair Fabric under Item No. 16A(2) was correct, rejecting the appeal against this classification. However, the Tribunal determined that Criss-Cross Patches and Pre-shaped Cord Fabrics should be reclassified under Item No. 68 of the CET, and directed the excise authorities to grant consequential relief to the appellants within two months.

8. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with the above classification rulings and instructions for re-assessment of duty on Criss-Cross Patches and Pre-shaped Cord Fabrics under Item No. 68 of the CET.