Common parlance test and unit-wise plant valuation governed classification and exemption for rubber products and industrial machinery.

Rubber waste and printed rubber labels were treated as excisable products classifiable under Tariff Item 68. Applying the common parlance test, printed rubber labels were regarded in trade as labels, not printed sheets, and rubber waste followed earlier Tribunal treatment under Tariff Item 68. The notification exemption was unavailable because the value of plant and machinery had to be assessed for the industrial unit as a whole, not by separating individual machines or sections. As the admitted value exceeded the prescribed limit, Notification No. 176/77 did not apply.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether rubber waste and printed rubber labels were classifiable under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff or under Tariff Item 16A. (ii) Whether the benefit of Notification No. 176/77 was admissible where the value of plant and machinery in the industrial unit exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs.

Issue (i): Whether rubber waste and printed rubber labels were classifiable under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff or under Tariff Item 16A.

Analysis: Rubber waste had already been held excisable and classifiable under Tariff Item 68 in earlier Tribunal decisions, and no reason was found to depart from that view. As regards printed rubber labels, the product was known and traded in the market as printed labels, not as printed sheets. Applying the common parlance test, the article could not be brought under Tariff Item 16A and was properly classifiable under Tariff Item 68.

Conclusion: The classification of rubber waste and printed rubber labels under Tariff Item 68 was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the benefit of Notification No. 176/77 was admissible where the value of plant and machinery in the industrial unit exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs.

Analysis: The notification required consideration of the value of plant and machinery in the industrial unit as a whole. The expression did not permit segregation of individual machines or separate sections for computing the monetary limit. Since the admitted value of the plant and machinery in the industrial unit exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs, the prescribed condition was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 176/77 was not admissible, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in its entirety, with both the classification dispute and the exemption claim decided in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: For classification, the trade or market identity of the product governs under the common parlance test; for exemption under a notification tied to the value of plant and machinery in an industrial unit, the unit must be assessed as a whole and not machine-wise.

---