9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (8) TMI 204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er has been transferred here and is being treated as an appeal of the department before us against the orders of Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent company manufacture what the department calls latex foam sponge cut into shape for use in the manufacture of cushion seats for motor vehicles. The company claimed classification of the goods under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff (hereafter Central Excise Tariff). The Assistant Collector rejected this claim and held that the goods were classifiable under Item 16A Central Excise Tariff. The Appellate Collector, when the matter came up to him, decided that dual seat cushions for motor vehicles were classifiable under Item 34A of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notice proposing review of the order of the Appellate Collector was issued on 15-3-1982. To this, reply was given by the appellant company on 7-5-1982. On the other hand, as rightly pointed out by the learned JDR various communications from M/s. Y.A. Mamaji Son, M/s. Allibhai Premji Tyrewalla, Association of Indian Automobile Manufacturers, All India Rubber Industries Association, M/s. Enfield India Limited, Escorts Limited, Kinetic Engineering Ltd. are all of subsequent dates from 1983 to 1985. Shri Chakraborthy, JDR has strongly opposed the admission of these documents on the ground that they are not contemporaneous. This argument is valid. 6. So far as the documents at S. Nos. 7 to 11 of the paper book filed by the appellants are co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (P) Ltd. case (supra). 12. The appellants cannot derive any strength or support from the decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Poly Flex (P) Ltd. (supra) where the product was manufactured by a single shot injection moulding process. It had been noted that this was quite different from the process of manufacture of polyurethane foam in the form of slabs and blocks. The item in that case, it was held by the Tribunal, was a seat or saddle which could be straightaway fitted to scooter/motorcycle, which is not the case here. 13. We concur in the view taken by this Bench in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. Apex Rubber (P) Ltd. (supra) and Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. M.M. Rubber Co. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
