1988 (10) TMI 217 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of rubberised tyre cord fabric under Tariff Item 16A(2) or 19(l)(b) of Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, regarding the classification of rubberised tyre cord fabric manufactured by the respondents. The fabric was described as having 40% cotton and 60% rubber. The Revenue argued that the fabric should be classified as cotton fabric sandwiched between two layers of rubber and assessed under Tariff Item 16A(2) or 19(l)(b) of the Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector had issued two orders, one classifying the fabric under T.I. 16(A)(2) and the other under T.I. 19(l)(b) of CET. The Assistant Collector's findings emphasized that the fabric was made of cotton yarn with rubber coating on both sides, leading to the classification under T.I. 19(l)(b) as a rubber product. The Revenue contended that as long as cotton fabric is present, the fabric should be treated as cotton fabric for assessment purposes.

The respondents' advocate argued that for the fabric to be classified as cotton fabric under T.I. 19(l)(b), cotton must predominate by weight. Referring to legal precedents, the advocate highlighted a case where a similar product was classified under T.I. 16A(2). The advocate also cited a judgment of the Bombay High Court which held that rubberised tyre cord with predominant rubber content should be considered a rubber product under T.I. 16A(2). The Tribunal had previously followed this ratio in their order. The respondents' advocate pointed out that the Collector had erred in determining the classification based on the predominance of rubber content over cotton fabric, as per the definition of cotton fabrics under T.I. 19(l)(b).

The Tribunal noted that the Collector and the Revenue failed to demonstrate how a fabric with 60% rubber content could fall under T.I. 19(l)(b) when the definition of cotton fabrics requires cotton to predominate by weight. Relying on the judgment of the Bombay High Court and the legal principles discussed, the Tribunal held that the fabric in question should be classified under T.I. 16A(2) as a rubber product, dismissing the appeal. Additionally, a supplementary appeal filed by the Collector was also dismissed for the same reasons as the main appeal, with the delay in filing the appeal being condoned.