Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Formica India Division Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise

Supreme Court1 April 1998S.C. Agrawal · S. Saghir Ahmad

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Tariff Item 22-F(4) under the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff covers only glass fabrics manufactured out of fabric or yarn, and does not cover any product made from or derived from such fabric through further processing or treatment; accordingly, a treated glass fabric produced by treating purchased glass fabrics with resin is not classifiable under that item.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

ORDER

1. 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 Assistant 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 Central 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 impugned 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 & Chemical Products Ltd. v. Union of India, 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 product of the fabric. In view of the said decision, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal cannot be upheld because here the appellant was purchasing glass fabric from the market and by treating 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.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free