1998(09)LCX0095

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI

Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J) and Shri V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)

NATIONAL RUBBER CORPORATION

Versus

COLLECTOR OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH

Final Order Nos. 739-742/98-C, dated 9-9-1998 in Appeal Nos. E/5703, 5707-5709/92-C

CASE CITED

Universal Conveyor Belting v. Collector — 1991 (035) ECR 0220 (Tribunal) — Followed                [Para 3]

Advocated By : Ms. Ginni Bedi, Advocate, for the Appellant.

Shri H.K. Jain, SDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - These four appeals involve common issue regarding classification of edge-cutting of transmission and conveyor beltings. The appellants were clearing these edge-cuttings at nil rate of duty by classifying them under CET sub-heading 4008.29 as strips of non-cellular rubber whereas the Department wants to classify them under sub-heading 4004.00 as waste, parings and scrap of rubber.

2. Ms. Ginni Bedi, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and submitted that the issue is squarely covered by this Bench Order pronounced on 4-9-1998 in Appeals No. E/2306-2307/93-C, E/2305, 2308/93-C, E/823-824/93-C, E/822 and E/1281/93-C in which the appellants were also a party. We heard Shri H.K. Jain learned SDR.

3. The issue regarding classification of edge-cutting was considered by this Bench in the appeal Nos. referred to above in which the appellant was also one of the party. In that order pronounced on 4-9-1998, we had observed that the appellants had raised the issue of excisability of edge-cuttings before the Assistant Collector and cited the decision in the case of Universal Conveyor Belting v. C.C.E. reported in 1991 (035) ECR 220; that the Assistant Collector, however, observed that the Tribunal’s decision was rendered in the context of erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and the dispute related to classification under Tariff Item 16A(2) as rubber product read with Notification No. 71/68, and as such the decision in the Universal Conveyor Belting is not applicable. However, the Bench considered that the plea of excisability is a legal submission and in the interests of justice the matter in those appeals was remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration in the light of the appellants’ submission that the given product is not excisable. Following the same decision, we remand these matters to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner who shall decide the matter afresh in the above context, after extending a reasonable opportunity to the appellants of being heard in person.

Equivalent 2000 (117) ELT  763 (Tribunal)