1987 (10) TMI 160 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of latex foam sponge as motor vehicle parts under T.I. 68 or under T.I. 16A(1).

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of latex foam sponge manufactured into specific shapes and sizes by the respondents. The respondents claimed the products, described as "bus seats" and "scooter seats," should be classified under T.I. 68 as motor vehicle parts non-specified, while the Revenue contended they should be classified under T.I. 16A(1). The Appellate Collector held in favor of the respondents, classifying the articles under T.I. 68, considering the actual use and quality of the products (paragraphs 2-3).

The Appellant argued that the products should be covered with a leather or rexine wrapper to be identified as motor vehicle parts, thus should be classified under T.I. 16A(1). On the other hand, the Respondents emphasized the functional use of the products and cited a Supreme Court ruling to support their argument (paragraphs 4-5).

The key issue for decision was whether the products should be classified under T.I. 16A(1) or T.I. 68. The Appellate Collector opined that the products fell under T.I. 68 as non-specified motor vehicle parts. The manufacturing process involved frothing liquid latex, transferring it to molds to shape the articles, and subsequent vulcanization. Despite the specific shapes, the products were essentially latex foam sponge (paragraph 6).

The Tribunal analyzed the Supreme Court decision regarding glass mirrors and distinguished the present case by noting that the latex foam sponge did not undergo a transformation like the mirrors did. The Tribunal emphasized that the products were essentially latex foam sponge molded into specific shapes, not a different product altogether. The functional aspect and the need for further processing before use in vehicles were crucial in determining the classification under T.I. 16A(1) (paragraphs 9-11).

In a separate judgment, another Tribunal member concurred with the decision, citing a previous case involving latex sponge cushions to support the classification under Item No. 16A(1), CET. The member highlighted that the products were made of latex foam sponge molded into specific shapes and sizes, which did not warrant classification under the residuary Item No. 68 (paragraphs 14-17).

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, concluding that the products were rightly classified under T.I. 16A(1) as latex foam sponge and not under T.I. 34A or T.I. 68 as motor vehicle parts (paragraph 12).