9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (10) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that in a classification list filed by the appellants on 18th March, 1976 (effective from 16th March, 1976), it was claimed that their product, declared FRP Translucent Sheets (corrugated roofings) , should be treated as non-excisable. The product was classified by the Assistant Collector as Rigid Plastic Sheets , falling under Tariff Item No. 15A (2) of the Central Excise Tariff, assessable to duty as per Government of India Notification No. 71/71, dated 29-5-1971, as amended. When the matter came up in appeal before the Appellate Collector, he ordered de novo adjudication, requiring that an opportunity be given to the assessee to defend their case and directing that a speaking order should be issued by the adjudicating officer. In the show cause notice, issued to the appellants, it was stated that the product was reported to be classifiable as rigid plastic by the National Test House, Alipore, on a physical test of a sample. In reply, M/s. VMT Fibreglass Industries stated that what they were manufacturing was corrugated roofing which was made from fibre glass mat and polyester resin in an approximate ratio of 40 : 60. It was argued t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er sub-item (2) of Tariff Item No. 15A. The Assistant Collector considered Tariff Item 28F as an alternative classification but decided against it on the ground that the product in question was manufactured without the aid of power. So far as the claim of the appellant that if classified under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 15A(2), then their product would be covered by exemption under Notification No. 68/71, dated 29-5-1971, being profiles and not sheets, the Assistant Collector came to a finding that their product could not be considered as profiles as, in their classification list itself, they had described their product as FRP Translucent sheets. Referring to Indian Standard Glossary of Terms used in the plastic industry, IS : 2828-1964, which defined sheet as a piece of plastic sheeting produced as an individual piece rather than in a continuous length or cut as an individual piece from continuous length, the Assistant Collector felt that this definition would cover both a flat section as well as a corrugated one. He also took note of the fact that the products were marketed as sheets and not as profiles. Further, he took note of the fact that the National Test House at Alipor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted from payment of duty under the relevant notifications as were in force from time to time during 16-3-1976 to 28-2-1978." 5. From the Department s side, Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned S.D.R., reiterated the views expressed in the Order-in-Original. He stated that it appeared, however, that the case of the appellants was covered by a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Madras Lite Roofing, particulars of which, on a request from the Bench, he promised to furnish later on. Subsequently, we were informed that it has not been possible to locate this judgment. 6. The appellants have also not cited any such decisions in the appeal or in the further written sumissions made before us. We observe that before the lower authorities, appellants had cited the decision of the High Court of Madras in the case of Tufflite Products Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore, in Writ Petition No. 4652/75 decided on 10th January, 1978 [1978 E.L.T. (J 509)], but this is not cited in the appeal or written submissions before us. We are, therefore, proceeding to consider the matter as if there is no earlier decision on the point at issue. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions made before u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overs articles made of plastics, all sorts. It appears that the appellants stand is based essentially on the fact that manufactures made from mineral fibres and yarns with the aid of power, being covered under Item 22F if and when they are not manufactured with the aid of power, they should go to the residuary item, i.e. Central Excise Tariff Item 68. This is not a correct assumption. There is no basis for this claim or assumption, in view of the wordings of Central Excise Tariff Item 15A(2). In fact, classification of the impugned product has to be considered as if Central Excise Tariff Item 22F, which is entirely irrelevant so far as the classification of the impugned product is concerned, did not exist. As for the argument of the appellants that the impugned product cannot be considered as an article of plastic because it is not manufactured out of 100% polyester resin, this again rests on the assumption that only those articles, which are made out of 100% polyester resin, can be considered as articles of plastic. For this, we feel, there is no warrant whatsoever. It is admitted that this is a product in which polyetser resin predominates and no technical authority or any other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, which was manufactured without the aid of power. So far as the claim of the appellants, as an alternative plea, that if classified under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 15A(2), then their product would be covered by exemption under Notification No. 68/71, dated 29-5-1971, being profiles and not sheets, and, therefore, exempt from payment of Central Excise duty is concerned, we find that this has been adequately dealt with in the Order-in-Original which points out that the appellants themselves declared their products in Form I to be translucent sheets and that these were also marketed as sheets. In the Order-in-Original, it was pointed out, with reference to the Indian Standard Glossary of Terms used in the Plastic Industry, IS : 2828-1964, that the definition of a sheet would cover both a flat section as well as a corrugated one. This has not been refuted by the appellants by reference to any technical authority or on the basis of any other supporting arguments. 8. We have also considered the submissions made before us that there was a violation of principles of natural justice in not allowing the appellants an opportunity to represent their case before the Adjudicating Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
