1986 (6) TMI 158 - AT - Central Excise

Non-automotive gaskets classified under correct tariff item; appeal dismissed, reclassification upheld.

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS Versus IPG. ENGINEERS (P) LTD.

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS Versus IPG. ENGINEERS (P) LTD. - 1986 (25) E.L.T. 451 (Tribunal) Issues: Classification of non-automotive gaskets under Central Excise TariffDetailed Analysis:Issue 1: Classification of non-automotive gaskets under Central Excise TariffThe case involved a dispute regarding the classification of non-automotive gaskets manufactured by a company under the Central Excise Tariff. The company contended that the gaskets should be classified under item No. 68 CET, while the Department argued that they fell under item No. 22F and were liable for duty. The Assistant Collector initially reclassified the gaskets under item No. 22F, leading to an appeal by the company. The Appellate Collector upheld the classification under item No. 68 CET, prompting the Central Government to issue a notice to reconsider the classification. The main contention revolved around whether the gaskets constituted a direct manufacture from fibre and yarn, falling under item No. 22F, or were a product made from manufactures of fibre and yarn, thus falling under item No. 68 CET.Issue 2: Interpretation of Central Excise TariffThe legal representatives presented arguments based on the interpretation of the Central Excise Tariff. The Department contended that any asbestos manufacture, including the gaskets in question, would fall under item No. 22F(iv) as long as it was composed of asbestos fibre and yarn. They referenced a Delhi High Court judgment and Central Excise Notification to support their stance. On the other hand, the company's representative argued that the gaskets should be classified under item No. 68 CET, emphasizing the distinction between direct manufacture from fibre and yarn versus products made from such manufactures.Issue 3: Precedents and Case LawBoth parties cited relevant case law to support their arguments. The Department referred to a Tribunal order involving glass fabrics impregnated with phenol formaldehyde, while the company's representative highlighted a decision regarding varnished fibre glass cloth. These precedents were analyzed to determine the classification criteria based on the predominant material and direct manufacture from fibre and yarn. However, the Tribunal found these precedents not directly applicable to the case at hand due to the specific nature of the products involved.Conclusion:After thorough deliberation and analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the non-automotive gaskets manufactured by the company did not fall under item No. 22F(iv) of the Central Excise Tariff but were rightly classified under item No. 68 CET. The impugned order reclassifying the gaskets was upheld, the appeal was dismissed, and the show cause notice was discharged. The judgment clarified the distinction between direct manufacture from fibre and yarn versus products made from such manufactures, providing a definitive resolution to the classification dispute.