1996 (4) TMI 243 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of rubber shields and Tank Fuel/Flexible Fuel Bag Tank as inner lining of fuel tanks.

In this case, the appeal was directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. P-38/90, dated 26-11-1990 of the Collector (Appeals) concerning the classification of rubber shields and Tank Fuel/Flexible Fuel Bag Tank to be used as inner lining of fuel tanks. The primary argument presented by the Ld. Consultant for the appellants was related to the classification of the goods under Heading 4016 as opposed to Heading 4008. The Ld. Consultant contended that the goods should not be classified under Heading 4016 as there was no finding that the items were made of materials falling under Heading 40.08. The Ld. Consultant argued that the goods could not be considered to have been made out of materials under Heading 4008 since the rubber had already assumed a particular shape before vulcanization. The Ld. Consultant also raised concerns regarding the introduction of the heading "articles of materials of Heading 40.08" under Heading 4016, which was not consistent with the Customs Tariff or HSN. The Ld. Consultant requested a remand to determine the classification based on the actual manufacturing process. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, argued that the goods were made of articles under Heading 4008 and emphasized the Department's position on the matter.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal examined the competing entries under Heading 4008 and Heading 4016, which included plates, blocks, sheets, strips, rods, and profile shapes of vulcanized rubber under Heading 4008, and other articles of vulcanized rubber under Heading 4016. The Tribunal noted that the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) had not provided detailed findings on the manufacturing process of the goods. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of understanding the various stages of manufacture to determine whether the goods were made of materials under Heading 4008 or constituted profile shapes. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original jurisdictional authority for a de novo decision based on the manufacturing process and the nature of the product, ensuring the principles of natural justice were observed. The appellants were granted the opportunity to present additional evidence to support their case during the reevaluation.