1991 (12) TMI 148 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants appeal, classifies product as plastic article under Notification 182/82. Decision based on manufacturing process and product characteristics.

MECHANICAL PACKING INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellants the benefit of Notification 182/82 by classifying the product as an article of plastic under T.I. ... Use of pin or screw during manufacture not to take the product out of the scope of notification Issues: Classification of product as an article of plastic under Notification 182/82.Analysis:1. The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of a product described as 'PTFE Moulded diaphragms pin or screw type' for excise duty purposes. The appellant contended that the product, made from PTFE Resin, should be classified as an article of plastic under T.I. 68 and be exempted under Notification 182/82. However, the original authority classified it under T.I. 68, denying the benefit of the notification due to the presence of pins or screws attached during manufacturing, making it a composite article.2. In appeal, the lower authority upheld the classification, stating that though made of plastic, the product was not considered an article of plastic due to its specific manufacturing process and commercial identification as a diaphragm. The appellant argued that the product's manufacturing process aligns with articles made wholly of plastic, emphasizing the predominance of plastic resin and citing relevant judgments to support their claim.3. The appellant highlighted the Department's past classification practices and trade notices supporting the classification of composite articles under T.I. 15A(2). They argued that the product's composition and manufacturing process qualify it as an article of plastic, contrary to the lower authority's interpretation. The appellant also presented affidavits from dealers affirming the commercial understanding of the product as a plastic article.4. The Tribunal analyzed the scope of Notification 182/82, which exempts articles made of plastics under T.I. 68 if produced from specified materials. The Tribunal disagreed with the lower authority's reliance on a Supreme Court judgment, stating that the case involved the applicability of the notification, not classification under T.I. 15A. The Tribunal concluded that the product, despite the presence of pins or screws, qualifies as an article of plastic under the notification, as the manufacturing process aligns with typical plastic articles. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellants the benefit of the notification.This detailed analysis delves into the classification dispute, the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, and the Tribunal's rationale for allowing the appeal based on the applicability of Notification 182/82 to the product in question.