1999 (9) TMI 334 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Revenue challenging the classification of Bead Wire Rings as excisable items.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue contested the appellate order passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, disputing the classification of Bead Wire Rings used in tire manufacturing as non-marketable items not subject to excise duty.

2. The Respondent, engaged in tire and rubber product manufacturing, classified Bead Wire Rings under Chapter Heading 8308.00 as Beads and Spangles of base metal. The Department issued a notice proposing a different classification under Chapter sub-heading 7326.20. The Assistant Collector modified the classification, which was appealed. The appellate authority determined that Bead Wire Rings were not marketable and hence not excisable, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

3. The appellate authority reviewed similar cases involving Bead Wire Rings produced by other manufacturers like M/s. Dunlop India Ltd., M/s. Metro Tyres Ltd., and M/s. Goodyear (India) Ltd. Different Collectors of Central Excise concluded that these rings were not marketable and thus not dutiable. These decisions remained unchallenged.

4. Upon examining the manufacturing process and characteristics of Bead Wire Rings, the appellate authority found them to be steel wires coated with rubber compound, having a short shelf life and quality issues. Due to these factors, the authority deemed the product non-marketable, citing the necessity of marketability for excisability. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing the importance of marketability for goods to be classified under the Central Excise Tariff.

In conclusion, the judgment affirmed that Bead Wire Rings were not marketable items, crucial for excisability, as determined by the lower appellate authority. The absence of contrary evidence led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal, upholding the classification decision.