1995 (1) TMI 142 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of non-woven felt fabric as 'Man-made fabric' under Tariff Item 22.
2. Classification of non-woven felt fabric as 'Floor covering, namely carpet or carpeting' under Tariff Item 22G.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification as 'Man-made fabric' under Tariff Item 22

The appellants argued that the non-woven felt fabrics (FFBW-1, FFB-1, and FFB-2) should be classified as 'Man-made fabrics' under Tariff Item 22(1)(a) or 22(1)(b). They cited the Supreme Court judgment in Poritts and Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, which recognized non-woven felts as textiles. The Tribunal examined the Collector (Appeals)' reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Gujarat Woollen Felt Mills, which suggested that the term 'fabrics' in Entry 21 referred to woven materials. However, the Tribunal found that the later judgment in Poritts and Spencer expanded the definition of textiles to include non-woven materials, considering advancements in science and technology. The Tribunal concluded that the non-woven felt fabrics could indeed be classified as 'Man-made fabrics' under Tariff Item 22.

Issue 2: Classification as 'Floor covering, namely carpet or carpeting' under Tariff Item 22G

The appellants contended that their non-woven felt fabrics did not qualify as 'carpet or carpeting' under Tariff Item 22G because they lacked the necessary backing or supporting material like rubber or polyurethane, which is essential for floor coverings. They argued that their products were used in specific parts of cars and vans and not as general floor coverings. The Tribunal referred to the "Standard Handbook of Textiles" by A.J. Hall, which explained that needle-loom carpets require further strengthening through sizing with rubber or polymer compositions.

The respondents argued that the commercial use of the materials in the automobile industry as floor coverings justified their classification under Tariff Item 22G. The Tribunal noted that the products had undergone additional processes like calendering or chemical treatment, which imparted characteristics of floor coverings. The Tribunal also considered the Bombay Textile Research Association's report, which confirmed that the products had synthetic backing or chemical treatment.

The Tribunal concluded that the non-woven felt fabrics had acquired the characteristics of floor coverings and were correctly classified under Tariff Item 22G. The Tribunal dismissed the appellants' reliance on a previous Tribunal decision (Order No. E/353/93-D), which dealt with different tariff headings and notes under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal confirmed the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, holding that:
1. The non-woven felt fabrics could be classified as 'Man-made fabrics' under Tariff Item 22.
2. The non-woven felt fabrics had acquired the characteristics of floor coverings and were correctly classified under Tariff Item 22G.

← Previous Next →