1989 (11) TMI 195 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of the product under Central Excise Tariff, applicability of Tariff Item 15A, manufacturing process involved, duty liability, relevance of previous judgments.

Classification of the product under Central Excise Tariff:
The case involved the classification of the product "Tricotise" under the Central Excise Tariff. Initially classified under Item 68, it was later re-classified under Tariff Item 15A based on a test report of the sample. The main issue was whether the product should be classified under Tariff Item 15A or under a different category.

Applicability of Tariff Item 15A:
The appellants argued that Tricotise was a physical mixture of ingredients and did not undergo any chemical synthesis, hence not falling under Tariff Item 15A. They relied on previous tribunal decisions and a Bombay High Court judgment to support their contention. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that Tricotise was a newly manufactured product and cited a previous tribunal decision to support their position.

Manufacturing process involved:
The Tribunal analyzed the manufacturing process of Tricotise and compared it to a previous case involving silicone products. They concluded that Tricotise was not classifiable under Tariff Item 15A but under Item 15AA, considering it as a preparation of synthetic resin used in the textile industry. The Tribunal emphasized that although there was no chemical change in the manufacturing process, a new product with a distinct name, character, and use had been created.

Duty liability:
The Tribunal directed the Assistant Collector of Central Excise to determine the duty liability of Tricotise based on the reclassification under Item 15AA. They also mentioned that any benefit of exemption notification applicable to the product should be considered in calculating the duty.

Relevance of previous judgments:
The Tribunal discussed the applicability of previous judgments, such as the case of Sandoz India Ltd. and Brooke Bond India Ltd., to the current case. They distinguished the facts of those cases from the present case and concluded that the classification of Tricotise under Item 15A(1) was incorrect, directing its classification under Item 15AA.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' classification under Item 15A(1) and allowed the appeal subject to the classification under Item 15AA with the benefit of any applicable exemption notification. The Department's cross-objection was dismissed due to the absence of evidence of suppression or misstatement of facts.