1998 (3) TMI 256 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal affirms RCC Tiles classification for M/s. Niraj Cement Structurals, denying exemption under Notification

NIRAJ CEMENT STRUCTURALS Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

NIRAJ CEMENT STRUCTURALS Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI - 1998 (101) E.L.T. 284 (Tribunal) Issues: Classification of products under Central Excise Tariff, Benefit of exemption under Notification No. 59/90-C.E.In this case, M/s. Niraj Cement Structurals appealed the classification of their products as RCC Tiles under sub-heading 6807.00 of the Central Excise Tariff and the denial of the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 59/90-C.E. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) observed that the product in question, although used for laying cables and reinforced with steel rods, was considered a floor covering in the form of tiles, specifically excluded under the notification.The appellant argued that the reinforcement with steel rods was not necessary for floor coverings and, therefore, their products should not be excluded from the notification. However, the respondent contended that the tiles, regardless of their use for cable protection, fell under the exclusion of floor coverings as per the notification.Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that the appellants' products were described as re-enforced cement concrete (RCC) tiles and classified under sub-heading 6807.00 of the Tariff, covering articles of stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, mica, or similar materials. It was established that while the appellants previously benefited from a different notification, the current notification specifically excluded floor coverings in the form of tiles from concessional duty rates.The Tribunal agreed with the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) that the appellants' products, despite being used for cable protection, qualified as floor coverings under the notification. The Tribunal emphasized that the term 'floor' encompassed both the product itself and its functional use. It was concluded that the appellants' products were indeed used as floor coverings, as they were placed on the floor to cover the cables running underneath.Considering the nature of the products, the arguments presented, and the appellate authority's reasoning, the Tribunal found no grounds to overturn the decision of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original classification and denial of exemption under Notification No. 59/90-C.E. were upheld.