COOLINE MANUFACTURERS P. LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Cooline Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. is whether Pipe Sections and Thermo Ceil manufactured by them are classifiable under Sub -heading 39.16 and 39.18 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act respectively as confirmed by the Department, or under Sub -heading 3926.90 and 3925.99 as claimed by them.

(2.) SHRI R.S. Dinkar, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture articles of plastic popularly known as Thermocol out of expandable polystyrene beads which are expanded in a pre -foaming machine and then moulded into shapes; that these take the shape of Pipe Sections and Tiles; that tiles are marketed in the name of Thermoseal which are used in ceilings for insulation purposes. He further mentioned that the Asst. Commissioner under Order -in -Original No. 81/89 dated June 1989 has held that Pipe Sections have been manufactured by moulding process and the duty demand was dropped; that there has been no change in the Heading and as such this Order of the Asst. Commissioner should continue to hold the ground. He further submitted that Heading 39.16 of the Central Excise Tariff applies, inter alia, to profile shapes; that Pipe Sections manufactured by them are not covered by the expression 'Profile Shape'; that according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary Profile means "drawing, silhouette, or other representation, of side view"; that Pipe Section manufactured by them is not profile shape of anything as when two such Sections are put together they make a pipe itself; that in commercial parlance also the pipe sections are known as articles of plastic, and therefore, are classifiable under Heading 3926.90. He relied upon the decision in the case of CCE, Ludhiana v. Madras Rubber : 2004 (174) ELT 81 (Tri) wherein it has been held by the Tribunal that "outline of an object is normally called a profile. A picture of representative of the side view of the article may also be said to be a profile." He contended that the impugned product 'pipe section' is not a picture of representative of side view of an article and as such it is not profile section.

(3.) FINALLY he submitted that if the benefit of Exemption Notification is denied to them by classifying the product as claimed by the Revenue the Appellants would be eligible for the Modvat Credit of the duty paid on inputs; that further the price has to be treated as cum -duty price in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Maruti Udyog Ltd., 2002 (180) ECC 249 (SC) : : 2002 (141) ELT 3 (SC).