9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (11) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lassification under the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (CET, for short), of a product called epoxy glass textolite sheets manufactured by the appellants. The goods comprise of resin and mineral fibres. On 20-2-1978, the appellants submitted a claim before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta for a sum of ₹ 1,17,675.01 on the ground that, though duty had been paid on the said goods under Item No. 15A(2) CET, the goods were correctly assessable to duty under Item No. 22F CET. In his order dated 15-12-1978, the Assistant Collector stated that since the goods were articles of glass fibre reinforced plastics, classifiable as rigid plastic sheets under Item No. 15A(2) CET, no refund was due. Acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether the subject product was correctly classifiable during the relevant period under Item 15A (2) CET as held by the lower authorities or under Item 22F as claimed by the appellants. 7. The appellants contention is that the product contains 61.8% of glass fabric, the balance being comprised of epoxy resin and hardener. The process of manufacture, as described by the appellants, is that glass yarn, on which duty had been paid under Item No. 22F, purchased from the market is woven in the appellants factory into glass fabric containing 100% glass yarn. (The said glass fabric, it is averred, has been and continues to be assessed under Item 22F). Epoxy resin is applied on the glass cloth by means of a brush and layer after layer is buil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1980 E.L.T. 752), of the Special Bench D of this Tribunal in Talbros Automotive Components Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1984 ECR 327 = 1984 (15) E.L.T. (193)] and of the Special Bench C in Formica India Division, Pune v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1984 ECR 1284 = 1984 (17) E.L.T. 590.] 10. Smt. Zutshi, on behalf of the Respondent, agreed that there was no dispute about the product being composed predominantly of glass fibre. However, the predominance test came only on 1-3-1979. The classification list filed by the appellants showed the declared classification as Item No. 15A (2) CET and the term used was rigid plastic sheets . This was so in the classification list of 15-4-1976 and again in the list of 30-11-1974. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e manufactures containing and not manufactures of or made of or made from . The logical inference would be that the sub-item did not require that the manufacture should have been composed entirely of mineral fibres or yarn or both. The manufacture should contain mineral fibres and yarn. How much of these should it contain ? It seems unnecessary, for the present purpose, to speculate. The present goods are composed predominantly of mineral fibre yarn. That, in our view, should suffice for bringing them under Item No. 22F (iv) CET. From the process of manufacture of the goods, it is clear that glass fabric is treated with epoxy resin. Plastic sheet, as it is generally known, does not seem to emerge as such in that process. Unless plast ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
