9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said item would be excisable under Tariff Item 15A(2) but exempted from the payment of the whole of the duty leviable thereon under Government of India Notification No. 68 of 1971, dated 29th May, 1971. By a letter dated 5th December, 1973, the Superintendent, Central Excise, informed the petitioners that the corrugated roofings being sheets were not entitled to the exemption under the said notification. The result would be that they would be liable to duty at 50% ad valorem as provided by Item 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff. The petitioners did not accept the view of the Superintendent and made a representation dated 10th July, 1974 to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, claiming that the classification of the aforesaid product by the Superintendent was not proper. The Assistant Collector gave a hearing to the appellants and came to the conclusion that the article in question was plastic material manufactured by the aid of polyester resin reinforced by fibre glass and was obviously a plastic sheet and would be covered by Tariff Item 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff and was not entitled to exemption. 3. The appellants preferred an appeal against the decision of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correctness of this decision which is sought to be challenged before us in this appeal. 5. It is necessary to set out some of the relevant provisions of law in order to appreciate the controversy raised before us. Item 15A(2) of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act, as it then stood, read as follows : "Articles made of plastics, all sorts, including tubes, rods, sheets, foils, sticks, other rectangular or profile shapes, whether laminated or not, and whether rigid or flexible, including lay flat tubings, and polyvin chloride sheets, not otherwise specified. Fifty per cent ad valorem." The relevant part of Notification No. 68 of 1971 reads thus : "In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts articles made of plastics, all sorts, falling under sub-item (2) of Item No. 15A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) except :- (i) rigid plastic boards, sheeting, sheets, and films, whether laminated or not; and (ii) flexible polyvinyl chloride sheetings, sheets, films and lay flat tubing not containing any textile materials; from the whole of the duty of excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t" which appears to us to be relevant is at paragraph (9) on page 669,and it runs thus: "A relatively thin piece of considerable breadth of a malleable ductile, or pliable substance." What is stated at sub-paragraph (d) would show that galvanised corrugated sheets of iron or steel were regarded as iron or steel sheets. This would go against the argument of Mr. Chagla. Mr. Chagla wanted to rely on the meaning of the said term at paragraph (8) which runs thus: "A broad expanse or stretch of something lying out flat, presenting a white or glistening surface, or forming a relatively thin covering or layer". In the present case, the said roofings cannot be regarded as a covering or a layer as contemplated in that paragraph. Further contents of that paragraph show that the meaning there was intended to cover things like sheets of water and of ice, of vegetation and of sediment, and not an item like plastic. Strong reliance was placed by Mr. Chagla on the meaning of the said term "sheet" given at page 1171 of the Concise Oxford Dictionary, 5th Edition. It, inter alia, states that a "sheet" is "Broad, more or less flat, piece of some thin material, e.g. of iron, glass, etc.". Now, thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the clarification, it is quite apparent that asbestos cement tubes would be clearly included in the item "asbestos cement products" and it is just not possible to suggest that the clarification shows that, but for it, asbestos cement tube would not be included in the general definition of asbestos products. The same is the position regarding the Item 26AA(ii) before its amendment in 1983. 11. We will now refer to the case of Tufflite Plastics Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore v. Union of India and Another, 1978 E.L.T. (J 509) cited by Mr. Chagla. In that decision a Single Judge of the Madras High Court took the view that the "side covers for bath tubs" which were manufactured by the petitioners they were not commercially understood as "plastic rigid board" and, therefore, were not classifiable under Item 15A of the Central Excise Tariff. We fail to see how this decision is of any assistance to Mr. Chagla in his argument, particularly as no evidence has been led before us to show as to whether the roofings manufactured by the appellants in the case before us were commercially regarded as "plastic sheets". Moreover, it is significant that the learned Judge of the Madras High Court has pointe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
