1988 (4) TMI 184

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ring brand name 'Kapton' imported by the appellants for the purpose: of additional duty - whether it falls under TI 60 as adhesive tape or residuary tariff item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff as claimed by the appellants or T.I. 15A(2) ibid as an article of plastic as assessed by the Revenue. 3. At the hearing of the appeal Shri Haksar, the learned advocate explained that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of electrical insulated copper conductors. Conductors are insulated with wide range of insulating material such as paper, enamel, fibre glass, lacquer. 'Kapton' polyimide adhesive film is also used by the appellants for the same purpose. It is imported in a narrow tape form, tape being of predetermined width. He submi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at as between item 15A(2) film made out of materials mentioned in item 15A(1) and Item 60 adhesive tape all sorts. Item 60 was preferable to classification under 15A(2). For classification under T.I. 68 Shri Haksar drew attention to the following two decisions of the Tribunal. 1. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay -1983 E.L.T. 1160 (CEGAT). 2. Sunrise Electric Corporation, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1983 E.L.T. 2465 (CEGAT). 4. Shri Sundar Rajan, opposing Shri Haksar's contention relied on the following two decisions : 1. Deepak & Co., Bombay v. Central Excise Division X, Dadar, Bombay & Others - 1980 E.L.T. 3 (Bom.). 2. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. M/s. Grace Paper Industrie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....shed the Bombay High Court decision in Deepak & Co., Bombay v. Central Excise Division X, Dadar, Bombay & Others - 1980 E.L.T. 3 (Bom.) saying that it was given in a different context. About the Tribunal order (405/86-C, dated 18-7-1986) he attempted to argue that the decision related to films lacquered whereas in the present case the film did not appear to be lacquered. 6. Before we proceed to discuss the appeal on merits it would be useful to reproduce Tariff Item 15A(2) and T.I. 60 as they stood at the material time. 15A(2) Articles of material described in sub-item (1), the following, namely :- Boards, sheeting, sheets and films, whether lacquered or metallised or laminated or not; lay flat tubings not containing any textile ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 7. As for Shri Haksar's reliance on Tribunal decision in 1983 E.L.T. 1160 (supra) classifying electric insulating tapes under Tariff Item 68 after omission of Tariff Entry 59 in preference to Tariff Item 22F, we observe that the Bombay High Court decision in Deepak & Co's case was not brought to their notice. Had it been shown possibly the classification would have been different. As for the other decision Sunrise Electric Corporation, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1983 E.L.T. 2465 (CEGAT) we observe that it related to electrical grade insulating paper and is not directly on the point. 8. During arguments Shri Haksar also referred to and filed a copy of Order-in-Appeal No. 2025/85-BCH passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals....