Mere insulation of copper strips does not create a new excisable product or justify a second tariff levy.

Insulation of copper strips already classified and duty-paid under Tariff Item 26A did not create a new excisable product or justify a second levy under Tariff Item 68. The Tribunal applied the Bombay High Court view, later followed in another Tribunal decision, that mere insulation does not by itself attract fresh duty unless the process results in a distinct excisable product. On that basis, the insulated strips were held outside a second levy under Tariff Item 68 and the demand was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether copper strips falling under Tariff Item No. 26A, after insulation, were liable to duty again under Tariff Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis: The issue was treated as covered by the Bombay High Court decision, which held that insulation of copper strips did not render them chargeable again under Tariff Item No. 68. That view had also been followed by the Tribunal in a later case. Applying the same legal position, the Tribunal accepted that the insulated strips remained outside a second levy under Tariff Item No. 68.

Conclusion: Copper strips falling under Tariff Item No. 26A, after insulation, were not liable to duty again under Tariff Item No. 68, and the demand was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods already classified and duty-paid under one tariff item are merely insulated, such insulation does not, by itself, justify a fresh levy under a different tariff item unless the process brings about a new excisable product.

---