1996 (12) TMI 150 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of Fibre Glass Reinforced Polyester Products under Central Excise Tariff

Issue 1: Classification Dispute
The case involves a classification dispute regarding Fibre Glass Reinforced Polyester products manufactured by the respondents. The Department claimed the products should be classified under Heading 3920.31, while the respondents argued for classification under 3925.90 as builders-ware made of plastics.

Analysis:
The Department filed an appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay. The dispute revolved around whether the products fell under Heading 3920.31 as claimed by the Department or under 7014.00 as classified by the assessee. The Collector (Appeals) initially classified the products under Chapter Heading 39 based on mutual agreement between the parties.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Chapter Notes
The Department contended that Chapter Note 11(b) of Chapter 39 supported the classification under 3920.31. They argued that the products, being rigid sheets obtained by compressing glass fibres impregnated with plastics, lost the character of glass fibre articles. The Department emphasized that Chapter Note 11(b) indicated Heading 39.25 as a residuary entry, applicable only when the goods were not covered by earlier headings of sub-chapter II.

Analysis:
The Tribunal analyzed Chapter Notes 10 and 11, noting that Heading 39.25 applied to structural elements like floors, walls, ceilings, or roofs. The products, known as FRP Roofings and FRP wrinkled glass, were considered as builders-ware of plastics, falling under Chapter Note 11(b). The Tribunal found the Department's contentions unsubstantiated, as the respondents provided evidence supporting the classification as builders-ware, while the Department failed to counter it.

Issue 3: Evidence and End Use
The Tribunal considered the evidence submitted by the respondents, including literature, manufacturing process details, and invoices demonstrating the products' end use as builders-ware. The Department did not present contradictory evidence, leading the Tribunal to uphold the Collector's classification decision.

Analysis:
The Tribunal concluded that the Department's contentions lacked substantiation, and there was no basis to interfere with the Collector's classification of the products. Therefore, the appeal was rejected, affirming the classification under Chapter Heading 39 for the Fibre Glass Reinforced Polyester products.