9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (6) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion No. 176/77 shall not be admissible to the appellants on the four items namely, rubber blocks, printed rubber labels, rubber solution and rubber waste. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of a number of rubber products. The four items in dispute manufactured by the appellants are (i) rubber crumbs (ii) printed rubber labels (iii) rubber solution and (iv) rubber blocks. Insofar as rubber solution and rubber blocks are concerned, there is no classification dispute on these two items. However, on rubber crumbs and printed rubber labels, there is a dispute about classification. The appellants claimed their classification under T.I. 16A of the then Central Excise Tariff whereas the Department hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in 1987 (31) E.L.T. 452. He submits that the only question for classification now remains about the classification of printed rubber labels. He submits that the appellants have claimed that these are sheets. He submits that the item is not known as rubber sheet nor is it sold as rubber sheet and submits that by applying the common parlance test, the item is printed rubber labels and since printed rubber labels cannot be classified under any of the sub-headings of T.I. 16A it only falls under T.I. 68 as it then was. The learned SDR on the question of applicability of the benefit of Notification No. 176/77, submits that this notification, among other things, had one of the conditions which inter alia required that value of plant and machiner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal. In the result, we agree with the findings and hold that rubber waste shall be classifiable under the erstwhile T.I. 68. 8. Insofar as the classification of printed rubber label is concerned, we find that the appellants have claimed that they are rubber sheets whereas the respondent argued before us that they are no doubt printed sheets but cut in the form of labels and used as such in the form of labels. It is a well settled position in law that in case there is an understanding of a product traded in the market then the common parlance test should be applied for determining the classification of a product. In the instant case, we find that the product is a printed label. The printed label is known in the market, therfore, the claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
