9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correct classification for purposes of additional duty of customs was Item 22(3) of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants went up in appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) against this classification under Item 22(3) of the Central Excise Tariff for purposes of levy of additional duty of Customs. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assistant Collector. 2. Heard Shri D.N. Mehta, advocate on hehalf of the appellants and Shri K.C. Sachar, JDR for the department. 3. Apart from the submissions made before the lower authorities, the learned advocate has sought to file, what he calls additional grounds of appeal . In these additional grounds of appeal, he not only appeals against the order of the lower authorities in respect of classification of the goods for purposes of additional duty of customs, but, for the first time, he contends that the correct classification for purposes of customs duty should be not under Heading 59.01/15 but under Heading 3907. Again, so far as classification under the Central Excise Tariff is concerned, he claims that the goods should fall under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and not Item 22B, as claimed before the lower aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide. It is submitted that the product was not in the first instance fabric as the fabric lost its identity in the totality of the product. The following case law has been cited in support of this point of view :- (1) 1985 (19) ELT 550 (Tribunal) - Collector of Customs, Madras v. Indian Textile Paper Tube Company Ltd. (2) 1983 ELT 1216 (CEGAT) - International Conveyors Ltd. Aurangabad v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. (3) 1982 ELT 634 (G.O.I.) - Dunlop India Ltd. , (4) 1984 (16) ELT 301 (Tribunal) - Multiple Fabrics Co. (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. 8. Attendant on their claim for classification under Item 68-CET for purposes of additional duty under the Customs Tariff Act is the further claim that they would be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 118/75, according to which, goods manufactured in a factory and intended for use in the factory in which they are manufactured or in any other factory of the same manufacturer, would be exempt from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon. It is submitted that if the appellants had manufactured the imported goods in the factory, they would have been wholly exempt from payment of excise dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ombay. (2) 1985 (20) ELT 222 (8.C.) - Khandelwaf Metal Engg. Works and Another v. Union of India Others. (3) 1986 (24) ELT 456 (Karnataka) -B.S. Kamath Co. and Others v. Union of India Others. (4) 1987(29) ELT 239 (Tribunal) - Almela Chemicals (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Madras. 12. The facts of the case and the submissions made before us have been carefully considered. We have also seen the sample of the impugned goods. The very first point which has to be admitted is that looking at the final product, while one can see that a textile fabric may have been an Ingredient or a base but such fabric is nowhere physically in evidence 1n the final product. In the Bill of Entry also, the goods have been described as Polyester Supplied PVC. The product is not described as fabric. It is true, (as the learned JDR has pointed out) that the technical literature refers to the denierage of the base fabric, but this would not make the finished product a fabric. 13. The principles which should govern the correct classification of such like products have been laid down in the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Indian Textile Paper Tube Co. Ltd. (Supra) which we fully e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Larger Bench in the light of the submissions made by both sides. Notification No.118/75 exempts goods falling under Item No. 68-CET when manufactured in a factory and intended for use in the factory in which they are manufactured or in any other factory of the same manufacturer from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon provided that where such use is in a factory of a manufacturer, different from his factory where the goods have been manufactured, the exemption contained in the Notification is allowable subject to the observance of the procedure set out in Chapter 10 of the Central Excise Rules. Therefore, in order to qualify for the exemption, the goods should be:- (i) manufactured in the factory; (ii) intended for use in the factory in which they are manufactured; or (iii) in any other factory of the same manufacturer. Added to the above conditions and for the purpose of their satisfaction, it is provided that if the goods are to be used by the manufacturer in one of his factories, which is different from the factory of production, then the procedure set out in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules should be followed. 18. It is evident from the nature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Item 22(3) of Central Excise Tariff are set aside and the goods are held to be correctly classifiable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. (3) The claim of benefit of exemption under Notification No. 118/75-C.E. is rejected. Appeal partly allowed in these terms. 23. [Order per: V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J)] - I have carefully gone through the order prepared by Shri K. Prakash Anand. I agree with his conclusions as recorded in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 27 and the reasonings given therefor earlier. I further agree with his conclusion as recorded in paragraph 22(3) about the in eligibility for exemption under Notification No.118/75-C.E. in the matter of additional duty of Customs. This is for the reason that Notification No. 118/75 grants relief on fulfilment of certain conditions and, in respect of an imported product, there can be no question of fulfilment of those conditions. Since, for the above reason, I agree that benefit of Notification No. 118/75 would not be available to the appellants, it appears to me to be unnecessary to go into the other questions as discussed in paragraph 19 of the order prepared by Shri Anand. I, therefore, do not expres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
