COMMERCIAL AHMEDABAD MILLS CO. Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, the Appellants imported Darex Versaprint Blankets for use in textile printing machinery. The goods were assessed to customs duty under heading 40.05/16(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as a rubber manufacture,. The appellants filed a refund claim on the ground that the goods were correctly assessable under heading 59.16/17 as a textile article of a kind commonly used in machinery. The Assistant Collector rejected their claim on the ground that the goods were predominantly rubber manufacture. In their appeal to the Appellate Collector, the appellants sought re -assessment of the goods under heading 84.40 as a spare part of textile printing machinery. The Appellate Collector rejected this claim also on the ground that Note 1 (a) to Section XVI of the Customs Tariff excluded articles of unhardened vulcanized rubber used on machinery. In their revision application to the Central Government (since transferred to this Tribunal and taken up as the subject appeal), the appellants pleaded that the goods were an essential part of textile printing machinery correctly falling under heading 84.40. They reiterated this argument before us during the hearing on 28 -6 -83 and added that since the goods were not entirely made of rubber, they did not fall under Chapter 40 and that Note 2(e) to Chapter 40 excluded these goods from the scope of that Chapter. They made an alternative plea to classify the goods under heading 59.16/17 as originally put forth before the Assistant Co Hector. In reply to queries from the Bench, the appellants stated that they did not know the respective percentage content of textiles and rubber in the goods and that they had no evidence to corroborate their statement made before the Appellate Collector that the goods were not made of unhardened vulcanized rubber.

(2.) THE Department's representative relied on Note 1 (a) to Section XVI of the Customs Tariff to say that the goods did not fall in the machinery chapters. He added that the appellants had no evidence to show that the goods were not made of unhardened vulcanized rubber, that the catalogue and the foreign supplier's letter dated 20 -11 -79 showed that the essential character of the goods came from rubber and that textile fabric was used in the goods only for reinforcement of rubber. He contended that Note 2(e) to Chapter 40 was not applicable to the goods and that instead the Proviso below Note 2(f) to that Chapter applied which retained the subject goods within the scope of Chapter 40.

(3.) WE have carefully considered the matter. We find that the goods were a composite material made of rubber and textile fabrics. We quote below from the catalogue and the foreign supplier's letter on record in order to get an idea of the true nature of the goods : - From the foreign supplier's letter dt. 20 -11 -1979