9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tc.; that seamless carbon steel/S.S. Pipes are obtained from open market and are cut to required size/length; two carbon steel/S.S. flanges are welded at both ends; Plastic extruded pipe, obtained from abroad, are then inserted inside the flanged seamless carbon steel/S.S. Pipe mechanically; both ends of plastic pipe which extend beyond seamless C.S./S.S. Pipe are then flared over the Flanges under heat and pressure and thus their final product seamless C.S./S.S. Pipe plastic lined is manufactured; that the impugned goods are exclusively used by Chemical process industry for chemical corrosion protection; that though the weight of the steel is more, plastic constitutes 80% to 87% of the total cost and the value of the plastic is the predominant factor. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that the process undertaken by them does not amount to manufacture as pipe remains pipe and no new distinct product emerges; that the Revenue by its own contention admits that the process of plastic lining does not bring into existence any new product as it wants to classify the pipes again under Headings 73.04 and 73.05 of the Tariff. He relied upon the following decisions :- (i) CCE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m PTFE having a layer of glass fibre which in turn is covered by stainless steel wire braid, having a high degree of corrosion resistance for conveying gas or liquid is classifiable under Heading 39.17 as essential character is provided by Teflon and not base metal. (ii) Sprint RPG India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2000 (116) E.L.T. 6 (S.C.) wherein the essential character of the imported material was decided on the basis of value. (iii) Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, 1989 (43) E.L.T. 788 (T). (iv) Appeal filed by the Collector against (iii) above was dismissed by the Supreme Court as reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. A247. (v) Collector of Customs v. Wash Udyog, 1987 (31) E.L.T. 73 (T). (vi) Sunrise Electric Corporation v. Collector of Customs, 1983 (14) E.L.T. 2465 (T). He also referred to Madurai Collectorate Trade Notice No. 24/90, dated 9-3-1990 as reported in 1990 (46) E.L.T. (T-16). He relied upon the opinion tendered by Dr. K.K. Tiwari, Professor of Chemical Engineering in University, Department of Chemical Technology, Mumbai according to which use of plastic linings to piping systems is wide spread with the structural strength o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no manufacture occurs. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Decorative Laminates (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, 1996 (86) E.L.T. 186 (S.C.) wherein it was held that process of application of Phenol Formaldehyde Resin on duty paid plywood under 100 percent heat and pressure amounts to manufacture as it results in a different and new product known as step-proof commercial plywood. 6. Regarding classification of the impugned product, the learned JDR mentioned that predominance in value is not a sacred proposition in absence of any Chapter Note; that the essential character of the impugned product is provided by steel only; that the ratio of the decision in Sprint RPG case does not apply to the facts of the present matter as in the said case software was the main thing which was imported and the Hard Disc was merely a container for software; that the orders were placed with the Appellants for PTFE Lined Piping and not for Plastic Pipe ; that the impugned goods are steel pipe reinforced with plastic; that the lining material cannot be treated as basis for classifying a product; that as held by the Collector (Appeals), goods are to be classified by applying criteria o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purpose which was not possible but for the process undertaken by the Appellants. Once the twin tests laid down by the Apex Court is satisfied the reliance of the Appellants on decisions relating to manufacture becomes irrelevant. We also observe that in Consolidated Chemequip case, Supreme Court s decision in J.G. Glass was not considered. Further, the process involved therein was cutting of Cupronickel Process Pipe to sizes and joining them by welding process which according to the Tribunal, did not bring into existence a new commodity. In the present matter the facts are different as the process undertaken by the Appellants bring into existence a mixed product. The mere that after the process undertaken by the Appellants the product will fall again under the same Tariff Heading is of no consequence in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Laminated Packings (P) Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held that the further contention urged on behalf of the Appellants that the goods belong to the same Entry is also no relevant because even if the goods belong to the same Entry the goods are different identifiable goods, known as such in the market. If that is so, the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
