TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (9) TMI 168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irst Schedule (hereinafter called the "CET") to the Central Excises &: Salt Act, 1944], Synthetic Epoxy Resin [falling under Item 15A(1) CET], Hardeners and Accelerators [Item 68 CET]. There are variations in the relative percentages of the constituents but it is stated that the glass-fibre content always predominates by weight in the final product. 2. The dispute in these proceedings relates to the classification of the final product - electrical insulators - under the C.E.T. It appears the goods were being classified under Item 15A(2) C.E.T. till 28-2-1979. With the amendments to Items 15A and 22F C.E.T. by the Finance Act, 1979, the department considered that the correct item was 22F and not 68 C.E.T., as claimed by the appellants. Af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....am case (supra) dealt with laminated goods and hence is not relevant to the present dispute. There is a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra Engineering & Chemical Products v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune 1984 (18) E.L.T. 680, contrary to the view taken in the I.P.G. Engineers case (supra). He also draws our attention to the decision in Talbros Automotive Components Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay 1984 (15) E.L.T. 193 on fibre glass reinforced goods holding that even 1% glass fibre would make the product fall under Item No. 22F CET. With effect from 1-3-1979, the criterion is predominance. The subject goods consist predominently of glass fibre and yarn. Hence, the correct item for this is 22F and not 68. 6. At ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts. [The photo copy of Item No. 22F as furnished by the appellants' Counsel during the course of the hearing does not correctly reproduce the entry. The correct entry as seen from the relevant Finance Act, is as we have shown above.] 8. Glass is, no doubt, as Shri Parthasarathy'points out, a man made substance and not a naturally occurring mineral substance such as, for example, asbestos fibre, but for the purpose of Item 22F, "Glass fibre and yarn including glass tissues and glass wool" have been included, by the deeming fiction in Explanation I to the item to be covered by the expression "mineral fibres and yarn and manufactures therefrom". Therefore, Shri Parthasarathy's submission that, on the basis of his aforesaid contention....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a manufacture made out of such a manufactured article. Again, we fail to see the relevance of this decision to the present case. It is not the appellant's case that the subject goods are the result of manufacture out of an already manufactured article, comprising mineral fibres or yarn. On the other hand, the goods consist of glass fibre, synthetic resin and certain chemicals, glass fibre content being predominant (about 75%) by weight. Based on this circumstance and the test of predominance of mineral fibres or yarn laid down in Clause (iv) of Explanation I, the subject goods are classifiable under Item No. 22F C.E.T. In this view, we do not deem it necessary to discuss the Tribunal's decision in the case of Mahindra Engineering and Chemic....