1985 (10) TMI 174 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Classification of Product as 'Rigid Plastic Sheets'

VMT FIBREGLASS INDUSTRIES, CALCUTTA Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA

VMT FIBREGLASS INDUSTRIES, CALCUTTA Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 194 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:1. Classification of the product under the Central Excise Tariff.2. Applicability of Trade Notices and Notifications.3. Adherence to principles of natural justice.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of the product under the Central Excise Tariff:The appellants filed a classification list on 18th March 1976, claiming that their product, 'FRP Translucent Sheets (corrugated roofings),' should be treated as non-excisable. The Assistant Collector classified the product as 'Rigid Plastic Sheets' under Tariff Item No. 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff, assessable to duty as per Government of India Notification No. 71/71, dated 29-5-1971, as amended. The appellants argued that their product, made from fiberglass mat and polyester resin in a ratio of 40:60, should not be considered as articles of plastics since it was not manufactured out of 100% polyester resin. They also cited Trade Notice No. 285/Miner Fibre and Yarn-1/77, dated 20th December 1977, which stated that any article containing mineral fiber in its composition was not to be classified as an article made of plastic. However, the Assistant Collector, referring to Indian Standard Glossary of Terms used in the plastic industry, IS: 2828-1964, concluded that the product was classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 15A(2), read with Notification No. 71/71. The Appellate Collector upheld this classification, stating that the product contained 60% polyester resin.2. Applicability of Trade Notices and Notifications:The appellants cited Trade Notice No. 285/Miner Fibre and Yarn-1/77, arguing that their product should not be classified as an article made of plastic. They also claimed that their product, if classified under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 15A(2), should be exempt from payment of duty under Notification No. 68/71, dated 29-5-1971, as it was a profile and not a sheet. However, the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector found that the product was marketed as sheets and not as profiles. The Assistant Collector also referred to Trade Notice 63/Plastic-1/70, dated 5-3-1970, which clarified that rigid plastic boards and sheets, irrespective of the process of production, are liable to duty under sub-item (2) of Tariff Item No. 15A. The appellants' argument that their product should be classified under Tariff Item No. 68 was rejected, as the product was predominantly made of polyester resin.3. Adherence to principles of natural justice:The appellants contended that they were not given an opportunity to represent their case before the Adjudicating Officer, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. However, the records showed that the appellants were given a personal hearing on 4th July 1978, and their Excise Consultant appeared before the Assistant Collector. When the matter was heard by the Appellate Collector on 4th August 1981, the appellants were informed well in advance but failed to appear or request an adjournment. Therefore, the contention of the appellants regarding the violation of principles of natural justice was found to be untenable.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, classifying the product under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 15A(2) and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellants' arguments regarding classification under Tariff Item No. 68, applicability of Trade Notices and Notifications, and adherence to principles of natural justice.