2000 (2) TMI 382

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated May, 1993 passed by the Collector Central Excise, involving the issue whether the scrap of rubberised bead wires is classifiable under Heading No. 40.04 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act (C.E.T.A.) as claimed by the assessee or under sub-heading 7203.20 for the period April, 86 to March, 88 and under sub-heading 7204.90 for the period from April, 88 to March, 91 as decided by the Collector in the impugned order. (b)    Appeal No. E/2689/93-B filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal No. A-138/93, dated 12-8-1993 passed by Collector (Appeals) involving the issue whether the scrap of rubberised steel belt fabrics is classifiable under Heading 40.04 as claimed by the Assessee and confirmed by the Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of rubber products and that rubberised steel fabrics is not considered as an article of iron & steel and it is an article of rubber. Hence, appeal No. E/2689/93-B by the Revenue. 3.  Shri Sajan Narayan, learned Advocate, submitted that the classification lists filed by them classifying scrap rubberised bead wire under heading 40.04 were approved by the Department from 1-3-1986 onward and the clearances were effected by the Assessee accordingly; that Assistant Collector in his order dated 20-11-1988 held that there was no contravention of provisions of Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules inasmuch as they had cleared the scrap under approved classification list; that again, the Assistant Collector, under order dated 8-8-1989, held....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ill be correctly classifiable under Heading 40.04. He relied upon the decision in the case of Premier Tyre v. CCE, Cochin, 1998 (99) E.L.T. 415 (Tri.). 5.  Regarding appeal filed by the Revenue in respect of scrap rubberised steel belt fabrics, the learned Advocate submitted that the assessee had filed a classification list No. 2/90 effective from 25-5-1990 classifying the said scrap under heading 7217.80; that the Assistant Collector issued a show cause notice dated 9-11-1990 for classifying the product under heading 40.04. Subsequently a corrigendum was issued for classifying the product under 72.04; that the Collector (Appeals) has rightly classified the product under the impugned order under heading 40.04. 6.  Countering....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the assessee has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Premier Tyres, 1998 (99) E.L.T. 415 in which the scrap was held to be not liable to excise duty following the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Modi Rubber Ltd., supra, and CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd., 1988 (36) E.L.T. 329. We find that decision in Dunlop India case was also passed following the decision of Delhi High Court in Modi Rubber case. In Modi Rubber case the product involved was Rubber Compound which was obtained by mixing Rubber with various other chemicals and also scrap of rubberised fabric. Delhi High Court held that waste/scrap is obtained not by any process of manufacture but in the course of manufacturing process to produce the end product of t....