Classification of rubber profile shapes depends on how goods are cleared, not merely on end-use or customer specifications.

Rubber profile shapes cleared in running length retained their character as profile shapes under CET sub-heading 4008.29. Manufacture to automobile specifications and later cutting to length or use in a particular application did not, by itself, convert them into articles of rubber under CET sub-heading 4016.90. The decisive factor was the form in which the goods left the factory, supported by sample examination and the HSN Explanatory Notes. The classification under 4008.29 was therefore upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether rubber profile shapes cleared in running length, even if manufactured to the specifications of automobile manufacturers and used in the automobile industry, are classifiable as profile shapes under CET sub-heading 4008.29 or as articles of rubber under CET sub-heading 4016.90.

Analysis: The classification depended on the form in which the goods were cleared from the factory. The earlier factual finding, based on examination of samples and the HSN Explanatory Notes, was that goods cleared in running length retained the character of profile shapes. The fact that they were later cut to length or used for specific applications did not by itself convert them into new articles. The Department did not dispute the finding that the goods were cleared in running length, and the claim that they had acquired the character of articles remained unsubstantiated.

Conclusion: The goods were rightly classified under CET sub-heading 4008.29 and not under CET sub-heading 4016.90, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned classification was upheld and the Revenue appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods retaining their identity as profile shapes in the form in which they are cleared do not become articles of rubber merely because they are made to specification or are intended for a particular end-use.

---