1984 (11) TMI 324

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed before it. 2. The dispute in the present case is with regard to the correct classification under the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (CET, for short), of a product called "epoxy glass textolite sheets" manufactured by the appellants. The goods comprise of resin and mineral fibres. On 20-2-1978, the appellants submitted a claim before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta for a sum of Rs. 1,17,675.01 on the ground that, though duty had been paid on the said goods under Item No. 15A(2) CET, the goods were correctly assessable to duty under Item No. 22F CET. In his order dated 15-12-1978, the Assistant Collector stated that since the goods were articles of glass fibre reinforced plastics, class....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts and Smt. Vijay Zutshi, S.D.R., for the Respondent. 6. The issue arising for determination is whether the subject product was correctly classifiable during the relevant period under Item 15A (2) CET as held by the lower authorities or under Item 22F as claimed by the appellants. 7. The appellants' contention is that the product contains 61.8% of glass fabric, the balance being comprised of epoxy resin and hardener. The process of manufacture, as described by the appellants, is that glass yarn, on which duty had been paid under Item No. 22F, purchased from the market is woven in the appellants' factory into glass fabric containing 100% glass yarn. (The said glass fabric, it is averred, has been and continues to be assessed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is stand, the Consultant relied upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Bhor Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1980 E.L.T. 752), of the Special Bench 'D' of this Tribunal in Talbros Automotive Components Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1984 ECR 327 = 1984 (15) E.L.T. (193)] and of the Special Bench 'C' in Formica India Division, Pune v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1984 ECR 1284 = 1984 (17) E.L.T. 590.] 10. Smt. Zutshi, on behalf of the Respondent, agreed that there was no dispute about the product being composed predominantly of glass fibre. However, the predominance test came only on 1-3-1979. The classification list filed by the appellants showed the declared classification as Item No. 15A (2) CET and the te....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on and from 1-3-1979 because of their satisfying the predominance test. The question arises whether notwithstanding the absence of the predominance criterion during the period prior to 1-3-1979, the goods would have fallen under Item No. 22F (iv). The words employed in sub-item (iv) during the said period are manufactures "containing" and not manufactures "of" or "made of" or "made from". The logical inference would be that the sub-item did not require that the manufacture should have been composed entirely of mineral fibres or yarn or both. The manufacture should contain mineral fibres and yarn. How much of these should it contain ? It seems unnecessary, for the present purpose, to speculate. The present goods are composed predominantly of....