Formica India Division Ltd. Vs. Collector of central Excise.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 167 of 1997 ,
Petitioner: Formica India Division Ltd.
Respondent: Collector of central Excise.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 167 of 1997 ,
Judges: S.C.AGRAWAL & SAGHIR AHMAD , JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 04, 1998
Head Note:
EXCISE
Central Excise and Salt Act , 1944
Tariff Item 68 and 22-F(n) – Pre-preg ‘ G ‘ – Purchase duty paid glass fabric treated with resin and product coming up. Held that there was a manufacturing and was covered under Item 68 and not under Item 22-F (4) Mahindra Engineering ( JT 1992 C1) SC 276 ) relied upon. (Para 2)
Central Excise and Salt Act , 1944
Tariff Item 68 and 22-F(n) – Pre-preg ‘ G ‘ – Purchase duty paid glass fabric treated with resin and product coming up. Held that there was a manufacturing and was covered under Item 68 and not under Item 22-F (4) Mahindra Engineering ( JT 1992 C1) SC 276 ) relied upon. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
The appellant was manufacturing laminates and for that purpose , it purchased duty-paid glass fabrics from various manufacturers . The appellant classified the product namely , Pre-preg ‘ G ‘ , as chargeable to excise duty under Tariff Item 68 in the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff under the Schedule to the Central Excise Act . The said classification was initially approved by the Assis-tant Collector of Central Excise but subsequently a show-cause notice was issued whereby it was proposed to classify the treated glass fabric under Tariff Item 22-F . The appellant submitted its reply to the said show-cause notice but the Assistant Collector passed an order classifying the product under Tariff Item 22-F(4) . The appeal filed by the appellant against the said order of the Assistant Collector was allowed by the Collector of Cen-tral Excise ( Appeals) who held that the glass fabrics alone could be classified under Tariff Item 22-F(4) and treated glass fabric could not be classified under the said item . On further appeal the Central Excise & Gold ( Control ) Appellate Tribunal by the im-pugned judgment dated 21-6-1996 , has reversed the said order of the Collector ( Appeals ) and has held that the treated glass fabric produced by the appellant was classifiable under Tariff Item 22-F(4) . Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the Tribunal , the appellant has filed the present appeal .
2 . Shri Laxmikumaran , the learned counsel appearing for the appellant , has invited our attention to the decision of this Court in Mahindra Engineering & Chemicals Products Ltd. v. Union of India JT 1992 (1) SC 276 wherein this Court , while dealing with sub-item (4) of Item 22-F of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff , has held that the said item only covers glass fabrics manufactured out of the fabric/yarn and would not cover any pro-duct of the fabric . In view of the said decision , the impugned judgment of the Tribunal cannot be upheld because here the ap-pellant was purchasing glass fabric from the market and by treat-ing the same with resin , the product Pre-preg ‘ G ‘ was being manufactured . The appeal is , therefore , allowed accordingly , the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and the judgment of the Collector of Central Excise ( Appeals ) is restored . No order as to costs .
The appellant was manufacturing laminates and for that purpose , it purchased duty-paid glass fabrics from various manufacturers . The appellant classified the product namely , Pre-preg ‘ G ‘ , as chargeable to excise duty under Tariff Item 68 in the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff under the Schedule to the Central Excise Act . The said classification was initially approved by the Assis-tant Collector of Central Excise but subsequently a show-cause notice was issued whereby it was proposed to classify the treated glass fabric under Tariff Item 22-F . The appellant submitted its reply to the said show-cause notice but the Assistant Collector passed an order classifying the product under Tariff Item 22-F(4) . The appeal filed by the appellant against the said order of the Assistant Collector was allowed by the Collector of Cen-tral Excise ( Appeals) who held that the glass fabrics alone could be classified under Tariff Item 22-F(4) and treated glass fabric could not be classified under the said item . On further appeal the Central Excise & Gold ( Control ) Appellate Tribunal by the im-pugned judgment dated 21-6-1996 , has reversed the said order of the Collector ( Appeals ) and has held that the treated glass fabric produced by the appellant was classifiable under Tariff Item 22-F(4) . Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the Tribunal , the appellant has filed the present appeal .
2 . Shri Laxmikumaran , the learned counsel appearing for the appellant , has invited our attention to the decision of this Court in Mahindra Engineering & Chemicals Products Ltd. v. Union of India JT 1992 (1) SC 276 wherein this Court , while dealing with sub-item (4) of Item 22-F of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff , has held that the said item only covers glass fabrics manufactured out of the fabric/yarn and would not cover any pro-duct of the fabric . In view of the said decision , the impugned judgment of the Tribunal cannot be upheld because here the ap-pellant was purchasing glass fabric from the market and by treat-ing the same with resin , the product Pre-preg ‘ G ‘ was being manufactured . The appeal is , therefore , allowed accordingly , the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and the judgment of the Collector of Central Excise ( Appeals ) is restored . No order as to costs .
