Predominant character test governs composite goods classification; asbestos vinyl floor tiles were not treated as plastic articles.

Composite tariff classification turns on the essential or predominant character of the finished product. Marblex asbestos vinyl floor tiles were found to contain limestone and asbestos as the main constituents, while plastic served only as a binding agent at about 10% to 15%; on that basis, the tiles were not treated as articles made of plastics under Item 15A(2) of the First Schedule and were not liable to excise duty under that item. The request for a certificate of fitness under Article 133(1) was also rejected because no substantial question of law was shown to arise.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Marblex asbestos vinyl floor tiles were liable to be classified as articles made of plastics under Item 15A(2) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. (ii) Whether a certificate of fitness under Article 133(1) of the Constitution of India should be granted.

Issue (i): Whether Marblex asbestos vinyl floor tiles were liable to be classified as articles made of plastics under Item 15A(2) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The tiles contained limestone and asbestos as their predominant constituents, while the plastic material formed only 10% to 15% and functioned merely as a binding agent. The relevant test was the real character of the goods, determined by the ingredient that predominates in the finished product. On that approach, the tiles could not be treated as articles made of plastics. The earlier quasi-judicial classification and the technical material also supported the conclusion that the product was not essentially plastic.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The tiles were held not to fall under Item 15A(2) and were not liable to excise duty under that item.

Issue (ii): Whether a certificate of fitness under Article 133(1) of the Constitution of India should be granted.

Analysis: No substantial question of law was found to arise for consideration by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: The request for a certificate of fitness was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The impugned classification order was quashed, the petition succeeded, and the assessee was relieved from duty liability under Item 15A(2); the request for Supreme Court certification was refused.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification of composite goods, the determining factor is the essential or predominant character of the product, and a constituent used only as a binding agent does not make the goods articles of that constituent.

---