1988 (1) TMI 137 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of impregnated glass fabrics under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background of the Dispute:
The dispute revolves around the correct classification of impregnated glass fabrics under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The original dispute also included impregnated asbestos fabrics, but the focus here is on impregnated glass fabrics. The dispute arose when the respondents claimed classification under Item No. 15A, CET, citing the predominance of plastic material contents (60%). The Assistant Collector initially classified the goods under Item No. 22B, CET, which was later modified by the Appellate Collector to Item No. 22F before 1-3-1979 and Item No. 22B thereafter. The Central Government, upon examination, found the Appellate Collector's order to be incorrect, leading to the issuance of a notice proposing to set aside the order.

2. Contentions of the Parties:
The department argued that Item No. 22B covered woven glass fabrics, regardless of impregnation with plastics. They emphasized the specificity of Item No. 22B over Item No. 22F and deemed the respondent's claim under Item No. 15A(1) untenable. On the other hand, the respondents contended that neither Item No. 22B nor 22F was suitable for the goods, asserting that the appropriate classification was under Item No. 15A(1) as a moulding compound in sheet form with glass fabric fillers.

3. Tribunal's Analysis and Decision:
The Tribunal scrutinized the classification list dated 17-6-1978, focusing on the interpretation of Item No. 22B CET. They clarified that the entry covered textile fabrics impregnated, coated, or laminated with cellulose derivatives or artificial plastic materials not specified elsewhere. The Tribunal differentiated between Item No. 22B and 22F, concluding that Item No. 22B was more suitable for the impregnated glass fabrics in question.

4. Classification Rationale:
Regarding the claim under Item No. 15A(1), the Tribunal rejected the argument that the goods were moulding powder in sheet form, as they were invoiced as impregnated glass fabrics. The reliance on Chapter notes of the new CET and the definition of "primary forms" did not support the respondent's position. The Tribunal also dismissed the reliance on the book "Laminated Plastics," emphasizing that the goods did not fall under the detailed coverage of Item No. 15A(1).

5. Final Decision:
After careful consideration, the Tribunal held that the impregnated glass fabrics were classifiable under Item No. 22B, CET both before and after 1-3-1979. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the department, affirming the classification under Item No. 22B for the subject goods.

This detailed analysis outlines the classification dispute, the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's rationale, and the final decision regarding the classification of impregnated glass fabrics under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.