9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p of rubberised bead wires is classifiable under Heading No. 40.04 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act (C.E.T.A.) as claimed by the assessee or under sub-heading 7203.20 for the period April, 86 to March, 88 and under sub-heading 7204.90 for the period from April, 88 to March, 91 as decided by the Collector in the impugned order. (b) Appeal No. E/2689/93-B filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal No. A-138/93, dated 12-8-1993 passed by Collector (Appeals) involving the issue whether the scrap of rubberised steel belt fabrics is classifiable under Heading 40.04 as claimed by the Assessee and confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) or under Heading 72.04 of CETA as claimed by Revenue. 2. Briefly stated the facts are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an article of rubber. Hence, appeal No. E/2689/93-B by the Revenue. 3. Shri Sajan Narayan, learned Advocate, submitted that the classification lists filed by them classifying scrap rubberised bead wire under heading 40.04 were approved by the Department from 1-3-1986 onward and the clearances were effected by the Assessee accordingly; that Assistant Collector in his order dated 20-11-1988 held that there was no contravention of provisions of Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules inasmuch as they had cleared the scrap under approved classification list; that again, the Assistant Collector, under order dated 8-8-1989, held that there was no question of issuing any order as the assessee had been paying duty correctly from 12-7-1988 onwards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 98 (99) E.L.T. 415 (Tri.). 5. Regarding appeal filed by the Revenue in respect of scrap rubberised steel belt fabrics, the learned Advocate submitted that the assessee had filed a classification list No. 2/90 effective from 25-5-1990 classifying the said scrap under heading 7217.80; that the Assistant Collector issued a show cause notice dated 9-11-1990 for classifying the product under heading 40.04. Subsequently a corrigendum was issued for classifying the product under 72.04; that the Collector (Appeals) has rightly classified the product under the impugned order under heading 40.04. 6. Countering the arguments Shri Ashok Kumar, learned D.R. submitted that the scrap is purchased by the dealers for the purpose of recovering metal wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not liable to excise duty following the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Modi Rubber Ltd., supra, and CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd., 1988 (36) E.L.T. 329. We find that decision in Dunlop India case was also passed following the decision of Delhi High Court in Modi Rubber case. In Modi Rubber case the product involved was Rubber Compound which was obtained by mixing Rubber with various other chemicals and also scrap of rubberised fabric. Delhi High Court held that waste/scrap is obtained not by any process of manufacture but in the course of manufacturing process to produce the end product of tyre, tube, flaps etc. and it is not as a result of manufacture because no one would produce any such degrading or even inferior thing. If the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
