Finished product identity governs classification; captive-use exemption unavailable for imported goods under the notification conditions.

Customs classification challenges not raised before the lower authorities were not entertained at the appellate stage. For additional duty purposes, a PVC-coated product was classified by reference to the identity of the finished article, not the hidden textile base, so the residuary Item 68 applied rather than the specific fabric entry. The benefit of Notification No. 118/75-C.E. was unavailable because it was intended for goods manufactured by the same manufacturer for captive use in his own factory or another factory, and imported goods could not satisfy that condition. The appeal thus succeeded only on reclassification under Item 68, while the exemption claim failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to the customs classification under Heading 59.01/15-CTA could be entertained at the appellate stage; (ii) whether the goods were correctly classifiable under Item 22(3) of the Central Excise Tariff or Item 68 for the purpose of additional duty of customs; and (iii) whether the benefit of Notification No. 118/75-C.E. could be extended to the imported goods.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to the customs classification under Heading 59.01/15-CTA could be entertained at the appellate stage.

Analysis: The customs classification had been accepted before the lower authorities and was not the subject of dispute in the first appeal. A new challenge to that classification at the Tribunal stage, without having been raised below, could not be permitted.

Conclusion: The challenge to the customs classification was not admitted.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods were correctly classifiable under Item 22(3) of the Central Excise Tariff or Item 68 for the purpose of additional duty of customs.

Analysis: The finished product was a PVC-coated article in which the textile base was not physically evident as fabric. The Tribunal treated the product as no longer answering the description of fabric and applied the principle that classification must follow the identity of the finished product rather than the character of a hidden ingredient. On that basis, the specific fabric entry was held inapplicable and the residuary entry was applied.

Conclusion: The goods were held to be correctly classifiable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff.

Issue (iii): Whether the benefit of Notification No. 118/75-C.E. could be extended to the imported goods.

Analysis: The notification was treated as one intended for goods manufactured for use by the same manufacturer in his own factory or another of his factories, subject to the prescribed procedure. Imported goods could not satisfy the condition of being the manufacturer's own production for captive use, and the exemption was therefore held inapplicable.

Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 118/75-C.E. was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of reclassification of the goods under Item 68, while the customs-classification challenge was not entertained and the exemption claim under Notification No. 118/75-C.E. failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A product must be classified according to the identity of the finished article, and an exemption notification intended for a manufacturer's own captive use cannot be claimed for imported goods that do not satisfy its statutory conditions.

---