2000(07)LCX0137
IN THE CEGAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
S/Shri S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MADRAS
Final Order No. 1026/2000, dated 31-7-2000 in Appeal No. E/345/94
CASE CITED
Panamid Treads v. Collector — 1999(04)LCX0177 Eq 1999 (108) ELT 0469 (Tribunal-LB) — Relied on.............. [Paras 1, 3, 4]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATIONS CITED
C.B.E. & C Circular No. 27/91-CX. 3, dated 3-10-1991................................................................... [Paras 2, 3]
Hyderabad Collectorate’s Trade Notice No. 137/91, dated 22-11-1991 — 1992 (057) ELT T4 [Para 2]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri S.R. Krishnan, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri M. Kunhikannan, DR, for the Respondent.
[Order per : S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)]. - The question in this appeal is on the classification of a product called by the appellant as Vulcanised Precured Tread Rubber. We find that the issue of classification of this particular product is settled by the Larger Bench decision reported in the case of Panamid Treads v. Collector of Central Excise, Trichy - 1999 (108) ELT 469 which after considering the Tariff entries and the scope of coverage therein classified Precured Tread Rubber in rolls and sheets form to be classifiable under sub-heading 4008.21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and not under sub-heading 4016.99 thereof.
2. Ld. Consultant for the appellants submits that in their case the demand is for a prior period (1991-92) and the classification would not be applicable since their product is Vulcanised Precured Tread Rubber and not Unvulcanised precured tread rubber, they would be still covered by Board’s Circular No. 27/91-CX. 3 dated 3-10-1991 which has been relied upon and reported in 1992 (057) ELT T4 as Hyderabad Collectorate Treads Notice No. 137/91 dated 22-11-1991. He, therefore, submits that since in their case classifications were approved and duty were paid as per the understanding of the Board and the Trade under Tariff Heading No. 4016.99, the re-classification under 4008.21 and consequential demands are not called for.
3. Ld. DR relies upon Note 1 to Chapter 40 which says that except where the context otherwise requires throughout this Schedule the expression ‘rubber’ means the following products whether or not vulcanised : natural rubber, balata, guttapercha, guayule, chicle and similar natural gums, synthetic rubber, factice derived from oils, and such substances reclaimed. Therefore, ‘vulcanised’ or ‘not vulcanised’ should be an issue. Hence entity in this case is covered by Larger Bench decision. The Larger Bench decision also has taken into consideration the Board’s Circular mentioned above and relied upon by the ld. Consultant. The decision of the Larger Bench is retrospective and therefore the order of the lower authority reclassifying the goods under 4008.21 and clubbing it with other goods to deny the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86 should be upheld.
4. We have considered the submissions made and the material on record and find that Precured Tread Rubber rolls and sheets are classifiable under heading 4008.21 as held by the Larger Bench in the case of Panamid Treads v. CCE, Trichy as reported in 1999 (108) ELT 469. This decision was arrived at after considering the Board’s instructions on the subject and the Tariff Act and Chapter 40 provisions. Therefore, we find no force in the plea raised by the ld. Consultant and we would therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority classifying the goods and denying the SSI exemption. The appeal is therefore rejected.
Equivalent 2000 (122) ELT 0732 (Tribunal)
Equivalent 2000 (041) RLT 0361