1997 (10) TMI 147 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of "Marblex Flooring Tiles" under Central Excise Tariff, 1985

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification History: The case involves the classification of "Marblex Flooring Tiles" under the Central Excise Tariff. The classification of the commodity has evolved over the years, with different authorities interpreting it under various tariff items. The history of classification dates back to 1971 when it was initially classified under Tariff Item 15A(2) as articles of plastic. Subsequent decisions in 1973, 1975, and 1978 led to changes in classification. Notably, a significant decision by the Gujarat High Court in 1980, upheld by the Supreme Court in 1987, emphasized that for a commodity to be classified as an article made of plastic, it must be wholly made of plastic material without other ingredients. The introduction of the Central Excise Tariff in 1985 prompted the assessee to seek classification under Chapter 68.07, leading to a show cause notice for classification under Chapter 39, which was later withdrawn.

2. Arguments by Revenue and Respondent: The Revenue, represented by Shri R.S. Sangia, contended that the impugned goods exhibited characteristics of plastic articles due to their flexibility and unbreakability, which are fundamental traits of plastic products. Sangia argued against the Collector's view that the articles must be entirely made of plastic for classification under Chapter 39, citing the percentage of plastic content in the tiles. On the other hand, Shri J.M. Patel, representing the respondents, relied on the judgments of the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court, asserting that the composition of the tiles did not primarily consist of plastic material, aligning with the precedent set by the courts.

3. Judicial Analysis: The Tribunal carefully examined the contentions of both parties and reviewed the relevant judgments. It acknowledged that the composition of the "Marblex Flooring Tiles" remained consistent with the previous case before the Gujarat High Court, where the court had ruled that the tiles were not articles made of plastics due to plastic material constituting only 10% to 15% of the total quantity and serving as a binding agent. The Tribunal emphasized that the essence of the grouping under Chapter 39 was akin to the previous Tariff Item 15A, as highlighted by the Gujarat High Court. Despite the Revenue's arguments and the advertisement presented, the Tribunal found no basis to deviate from the established legal precedent. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Collector's order classifying the goods under Chapter 68.07, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment reaffirmed the significance of legal precedents, particularly the rulings of the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court, in determining the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff. The decision underscored the importance of the composition of products and the interpretation of relevant tariff entries in resolving classification disputes.