9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... propylene fibres placed on reinforcement of hessian cloth, and calendering it after spraying the underside with chemical binder. In the classification lists filed from time to time the appellants claimed the classification of these non-woven felt fabrics as `Man-made Fabrics under Tariff Item 22(1)(a) or 22(1)(b). On the advice of the department the appellants classified the goods under Tariff Item 22G which covered Floor coverings, namely, carpets, carpetings and rugs (made up or not) . Thereafter, by a letter dated 3-10-1985 the appellants were informed that it was proposed to finally approve the classification of the fabrics in question under Tariff Item 22G. The appellants contended that non-woven felt fabrics manufactured by them were not classifiable under Tariff Item 22G since in the absence of any backing or supporting material they could not be deemed as Carpets or Carpeting . However, by his Order dated 22-11-1985 the Assistant Collector held that the non-woven fabrics in question were classifiable under Tariff Item 22G. Based on the order passed by the Assistant Collector, the Suptd. of Central Excise demanded a sum of Rs. 28,03,082.27 from the appellants. Being agg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only a reinforced needle punched non-woven felt with a back layer of waste fibres. The Ld. counsel for the appellants further submitted that in terms of Explanation II to Tariff Item 22G a product could be classified as carpet or carpeting only if it has the characteristics of floor coverings. He contended that the disputed goods could not be deemed as having the characteristics of carpet as they did not have the backing of any rubber or polyurethane or polymer composition which has necessarily to be provided to non-woven felts for conversion into `Carpeting . He stated that in the appellants own case in Order No. E/353/93-D, dated 15-10-1993 the Tribunal has held that needle-loom non-woven felt which is not reinforced by rubberising or latexing as classifiable only as felt under Heading 56.02 on the grounds that it could not be deemed as goods having acquired as essential characteristics of floor coverings falling under sub-headings 5702.20 and 5702.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. 3. On behalf of the respondents Shri Satish Shah Ld. JDR stated that as held by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Novopan India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise Customs, Hyderabad, reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Tariff on the consideration that specific mention of woven materials such as blankets, rugs and shawls suggested that the word `Fabrics in Entry 21 had been used to mean woven material in the sense in which it is popularly understood. In this regard we find that in a later judgment in the case of Poritts and Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1607 (SC), the Supreme Court had, while holding that `Dryer felts are `textiles classifiable under Item 30, Schedule `B to the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 observed that there has been such phenomenal advance in science and technology and so many new techniques have been invented for making fabric out of yarn that it would be most unwise to confine the weaving process to warp and woof pattern and whatever the mode of weaving employed woven fabric would be `textiles . The Court further observed that it must be remembered that the concept of `textiles is not a static concept and having regard to newly developing materials, methods, techniques and processes, a continually expanding content and new kinds of fabrics may be invented which may be legitimately, without doing any violence to the language ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is less than in the case of woven carpets, it is important that it should be further strengthened by sizing the under-side of the base fabric with a rubber, polyurethane or other polymer composition and it is desirable for this to penetrate slightly through the fabric so as to give increased solidity and firmness of the resulting needle-loom carpet. 7. It is an admitted fact that the disputed non-woven felt products bearing code names FFB-1, FFB-2 and FFBW-1 are used as floor coverings in the front and back of Maruti cars and vans and for covering the rear portion of the back seat of Maruti car and van. Read with Explanation II, Item No. 22G of the relevant Central Excise Tariff also covers carpeting having the characteristics of floor covering but intended for use for any other purpose. Hence, the disputed items of non-woven felt would be classifiable under Item 22G if they can be deemed to have acquired characteristics of floor coverings. According to the Standard Handbook of Textiles by A.J. Hall which has been relied upon by the appellants, the manufacture of needle-loom carpets involves punching of a thick layer or web of loose fibres laid over a hessian base fabric by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rewith four fabric samples for classification of the same. We give below our comments regarding the same. 1. Fabric marked C-7655 FFB-1 : The sample is reinforced needle punched non-woven felt with one side appears to be calendered. 2. Fabric marked C-7656 FFB-2 : This sample is also reinforced needle punched non-woven felt with one side chemical binder treated. 3. Fabric marked C-7657 FFB-3/FFB-4 : The sample is a reinforced needle punched non-woven felt. 4. Fabric marked C-7658 FFBW-1 : The sample is a reinforced needle punched non-woven felt with a back layer of waste fibres." 9. As discussed above, in our view the disputed product by needle punching of webs of fibre laid on a hessian base in a needle-loom and subjecting it to calendering or treatment by chemical binder will have characteristics of carpeting even though it may require further treatment of the base fabric with rubber, polyurethane or other polymer composition for imparting the same strength and durability as in the case of other woollen carpets. We, thererfore, hold that in the impugned order they were correctly held as classifiable under Tariff Item 22G. 10. In support of their case the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
