1987 (7) TMI 444 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of jute fabrics laminated with PVC under Item 22-A CET or Item 22-B CET.

In this case, the appellants, M/s. National Leather Cloth Manufacturing Company, sought classification of their jute fabrics laminated with PVC under Item 22-A CET, but the Assistant Collector classified it under Item 22-B. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld this classification. The main issue is whether the product should be classified under Item 22-A or Item 22-B of the Central Excise Tariff (CET).

The argument presented by the appellants is that the product should be classified under Item 22-A as it covers jute manufactures, and since jute predominates by weight in the product, it should fall under this category. On the other hand, the Department argues that the product should be classified under Item 22-B, which covers textile fabrics impregnated, coated, or laminated if not specified elsewhere. The key consideration is whether the product falls specifically under one item or the other, or if it could potentially fall under both, necessitating a determination of which is more specific.

The appellants rely on Notification No. 53/65-C.E., which exempted rot-proofed, laminated, and fire-resistant jute products falling under Item 22-A. They argue that this notification indicates that the government considered laminated jute fabrics to qualify under Item 22-A. However, the Department points out that Notification No. 250/77-C.E. granted exemption under Item 22-B for fire-resistant products made with unprocessed jute, suggesting that laminated jute fabrics may not be classified as jute manufactures under Item 22-A.

Another argument raised is regarding the explanation to Item 22-A, which the Department interprets as requiring the predominance of jute fiber over other fibers in the product, not over non-fibrous components like PVC. The Tribunal disagrees with this interpretation, stating that Item 22-A explicitly requires the predominance of jute fiber for inclusion under that category.

Ultimately, the Tribunal rules in favor of the Department, upholding the classification of the product under Item 22-B. They conclude that since the product is jute fabric laminated with PVC, it falls under the category of laminated textile fabrics specified in Item 22-B. The reliance on past notifications is deemed irrelevant, as the introduction and subsequent amendment of Item 22-B make it clear that the product should be classified under that item. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the orders of the lower authorities are upheld.