1987 (7) TMI 438 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim based on classification under different Tariff items.
2. Delay in appeal presentation and condonation.
3. Classification of the product as Ball Bearing Bobbin Holders.
4. Interpretation of classification under Tariff Item 15A(2) CET.
5. Comparison with relevant case law - Geep Flash Light Industries Ltd.
6. Final decision on the classification of the product.

Analysis:

1. The appellants filed a refund claim based on the argument that duty was paid under T.I. 68 CET, but the product (Ball Bearing Bobbin Holders) should have been classified under Tariff item 15A(2) CET. The claim was initially rejected by the Assistant Collector and subsequently by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), leading to this appeal.

2. During the appeal proceedings, a delay of 3 days in the presentation of the appeal was noted. The appellants requested condonation of the delay, which was granted after hearing both sides. Subsequently, arguments on the merits of the case were heard, focusing on the classification of the product in question.

3. The product under consideration, the Ball Bearing Bobbin Holder, was claimed by the appellants to be known as a plastic ball bearing bobbin holder. It was revealed that the product contained 28% plastics by weight and the rest non-plastics. The appellants argued that the product could be classified under item 15A(2) CET even if not wholly made of plastics.

4. The appellants cited various tariff advices and a decision of the Gujarat High Court to support their contention that products with a mix of plastic and non-plastic components could still be classified under item 15A(2) CET. However, the Department representative referred to a Supreme Court decision in Geep Flash Light Industries Ltd., highlighting the requirement that articles classified under item 15A(2) CET must be wholly made of plastic, not a combination of plastic and other materials.

5. The Supreme Court's decision in Geep Flash Light Industries Ltd. clarified that items under item 15A(2) CET must be made wholly of plastic, not a combination of plastic and other materials. As the product in question contained 28% plastic and 72% non-plastic materials, it was deemed properly classified under Tariff Item 68 CET, not under item 15A(2) CET.

6. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the interpretation of the classification criteria under Tariff Item 15A(2) CET as per the Supreme Court's decision, affirming that the product in question did not meet the requirements for classification under that item.