MADRAS RUBBER FACTORY Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE captioned appeal was initially filed by the appellants before the Central Government as a Revision Application and has come on transfer to this Tribunal under the provisions of Section 35 -P(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for disposal as if it were an appeal presented before it.

(2.) THE goods forming the subject matter of the dispute in the present proceedings are what are known as Cord Repair Fabrics, Pre -shaped Cord Patches and Criss -Cross Patches, the latter two products being made out of the first product. The appellants' contention is that these do not fall for classification under Item No. 16A(2) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act (hereinafter referred to as CET), under which Item the Central Excise authorities have classified the products for assessment to duty. The appellants' contentions were rejected by the lower authorities and they went in revision before the Central Government which has now come to us on transfer under the provisions of Section 35 -P(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act to be disposed of as if it were an appeal presented before us.

(3.) THE appeal was heard on 15 -4 -1983 when Shri S. Ignatius appearing on behalf of the appellants, reiterated the submissions contained in the Memorandum of Appeal. Shri Hem Prakash, stated on behalf of the Revenue, that in view of the terminology used in Item 16A(2) of the CET, plates, sheets and strips of rubber, unhardened, whether combined with any textile material or otherwise, would fall within its scope. The present goods are rubber sheets combined with textile material. In view of this, the particular terminology used in the CET, the Explanatory Notes under the CCCN were not relevant to interpret the scope of the CET Item.