Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Glass Fibres and Allied - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. these three appeals filed by the revenue arise out of the same order-in-appeal in which the collector had dealt with three applications filed before him in terms of section 35e(2) of the central excises and salt act, 1944 in respect of three assessees. the case for the appellants was argued by shri sanjeev srivastava, jdr. all the three respondents were represented by shri g. shiva dass, advocate.2. in each case, the classification suggested by each assessee for glass fabric impregnated/laminates was under heading 8546.00 of the central excise tariff act, 1985. the insulating fittings of various sizes and shapes were sought to be classified under heading 8547.00. in each case, the assistant collector accepted the classification suggested by the assessees. in the application, the point raised was that these goods would merit classification under heading 7014.00 as articles of glass. the collector in his impugned order upheld the classification as approved by the assistant collector. hence the present appeals.3. the collector in his order had relied upon a judgment of the tribunal in which similar fabrics were held classifiable under heading 85.46. in the appeal memorandum the claim made is that an appeal against these orders has been filed before the supreme court. ld. jdr fairly concedes that he has no information as to the outcome of this appeal. it is his claim that at the first stage the fabrics are classifiable under 70.14. it is his claim that several articles have insulating properties but that it would not be proper to classify them under 8546 merely on that ground. it is his claim that for classification under chapter 85 to be accorded, the waste material will have to shaped and fitted with fixing devise etc. shri g. shiva dass, on the other hand, relies upon the supreme court judgment in the case of bakelite hylam ltd. reported at 1997 (91) e.l.t. 13 (s.c).4. we have carefully considered the arguments and have perused the cited judgments. the issue before the supreme court was whether the classification of glass epoxy laminates under heading 8546 as made by the tribunal was correct or not. the finding of the supreme court was in the affirmative. it was held that glass epoxy laminates would merit classification under heading 7014 upto 28-2-1988 and under 8546 thereafter. since the disputed goods in this case are glass impregnated/laminates, applying the ratio of this judgment, we find that the collector was correct in upholding the classification as held by the original authority. as regards the articles made from the glass epoxy laminates, we find that whereas the parent fabric itself merits classification under 8546, the resultant products must be classified under 8547. the appeals from the revenue thus fail on both the counts and are rejected.

Judgment:
1. These three appeals filed by the Revenue arise out of the same order-in-appeal in which the Collector had dealt with three applications filed before him in terms of Section 35E(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 in respect of three assessees. The case for the appellants was argued by Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, JDR. All the three respondents were represented by Shri G. Shiva Dass, Advocate.

2. In each case, the classification suggested by each assessee for glass fabric impregnated/laminates was under Heading 8546.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The insulating fittings of various sizes and shapes were sought to be classified under Heading 8547.00. In each case, the Assistant Collector accepted the classification suggested by the assessees. In the Application, the point raised was that these goods would merit classification under Heading 7014.00 as articles of glass. The Collector in his impugned order upheld the classification as approved by the Assistant Collector. Hence the present appeals.

3. The Collector in his order had relied upon a judgment of the Tribunal in which similar fabrics were held classifiable under Heading 85.46. In the appeal memorandum the claim made is that an appeal against these orders has been filed before the Supreme Court. Ld. JDR fairly concedes that he has no information as to the outcome of this appeal. It is his claim that at the first stage the fabrics are classifiable under 70.14. It is his claim that several articles have insulating properties but that it would not be proper to classify them under 8546 merely on that ground. It is his claim that for classification under Chapter 85 to be accorded, the waste material will have to shaped and fitted with fixing devise etc. Shri G. Shiva Dass, on the other hand, relies upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Bakelite Hylam Ltd. reported at 1997 (91) E.L.T. 13 (S.C).

4. We have carefully considered the arguments and have perused the cited judgments. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the classification of Glass Epoxy Laminates under Heading 8546 as made by the Tribunal was correct or not. The finding of the Supreme Court was in the affirmative. It was held that Glass Epoxy Laminates would merit classification under Heading 7014 upto 28-2-1988 and under 8546 thereafter. Since the disputed goods in this case are Glass Impregnated/Laminates, applying the ratio of this judgment, we find that the Collector was correct in upholding the classification as held by the original authority. As regards the articles made from the Glass Epoxy Laminates, we find that whereas the parent fabric itself merits classification under 8546, the resultant products must be classified under 8547. The appeals from the Revenue thus fail on both the counts and are rejected.