1993 (10) TMI 163 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of product under Central Excise Tariff - Whether the process amounts to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appeal and cross-objection arose from an order by the Collector Central Excise (Appeals) regarding the classification of a compound product made from Polypropylene and Fibre Glass. The respondents argued that their product was not excisable as the addition of Fibre Glass did not create a new product. However, the Assistant Collector classified the product under a different Tariff Item, leading to the appeal.

2. The Collector (Appeals) held that the process did not constitute "manufacture" under Section 2(f) as the Fibre Glass was considered a filler, and no new product emerged from the mixing of Polypropylene and Fibre Glass.

3. The appellant contended that the process amounted to manufacture as it resulted in a new product known as "Reinforced Plastic" with various applications. Citing a Tribunal decision, the appellant argued that similar products were classified under a specific Tariff Item, thus challenging the sustainability of the impugned order.

4. The respondents argued that the mixture of Polypropylene and Fibre Glass did not undergo a chemical reaction, and the resulting product was only usable as a plastic raw material for molding. They relied on case law to support their position that no new product emerged from the combination of Polypropylene and Fibre Glass.

4A. The Tribunal examined whether the process of heating and drawing the mixture of Polypropylene and Fibre Glass could be considered "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Act.

5. The Tribunal referred to definitions of Polypropylene, filler, and Reinforced Plastic to determine that the process resulted in the emergence of Reinforced Plastic, a distinct product with specific properties. The contention that Fibre Glass acted only as a filler was rejected based on these definitions.

6. The Tribunal noted a previous case where Fibreglass-reinforced plastic products were classified under a specific Tariff Item, supporting the classification of the present product under a different Tariff Item due to the high proportion of Fibre Glass.

7. Considering the exemption of certain plastic articles from duty and the composition of the compound product, the Tribunal held that the product was correctly classifiable under a different Tariff Item, affirming that the process amounted to manufacture under the Act.

8. The judgments cited by the respondents were deemed irrelevant as they did not pertain to materials like reinforced plastics, further supporting the Tribunal's decision to reject the cross-objection and allow the appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the cross-objection and allowed the appeal, affirming the classification of the product under a different Tariff Item based on the manufacturing process and composition involving Polypropylene and Fibre Glass.