Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Mercury Rubber Mills - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the issue arising for determination in these two appeals is the classification of a product called 'hospital sheeting' or 'mackintosh' manufactured by the respondents. the goods consist of cotton fabrics which are rubberised, the final product being comprised predominantly of rubber. the question is whether the product falls under item 16-a(2) of the first schedule to the central excises and salt act as rubber products, plates, sheets and strips unhardened, whether vulcanised or not, and whether combined with any textile material or otherwise or under item no. 19(1)(b) as "cotton fabrics" subjected to the process of rubberising.2. we have heard smt. d. saxena, sr. d.r. for the appellant collector and shri v. lakshmikumaran advocate for the respondent.3. a similar issue had come up for consideration of this tribunal in collector of central excise, bombay v. international rubber and general industry, bombay, disposed of by order no. 373/87-d, dated 11-5-1987.after a detailed consideration of all aspects of the matter, it was held that such a product would fall under item no. 16-a(2) of the tariff schedule. this decision followed the earlier decision of the tribunal in the case of falcon tyres -1985 (21) e.l.t. 786 and the judgment of the bombay high court in the case of madras rubber factory -1985 (22) e.l.t. 5. while smt. saxena reiterates the grounds set forth in the memo of appeal, shri lakshmikumaran, advocate for the respondent relies on the aforesaid decisions and prays that the appeals be dismissed.4. having considered the submissions of both sides, we do not see any reason to depart from the earlier decision which was on a similar product. accordingly, we hold that the subject goods also fall for classification under item no. 16-a(2) of the tariff schedule.accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss both the appeals.

Judgment:
1. The issue arising for determination in these two appeals is the classification of a product called 'hospital sheeting' or 'mackintosh' manufactured by the respondents. The goods consist of cotton fabrics which are rubberised, the final product being comprised predominantly of rubber. The question is whether the product falls under Item 16-A(2) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act as rubber products, plates, sheets and strips unhardened, whether vulcanised or not, and whether combined with any textile material or otherwise or under Item No. 19(1)(b) as "cotton fabrics" subjected to the process of rubberising.

2. We have heard Smt. D. Saxena, Sr. D.R. for the Appellant Collector and Shri V. Lakshmikumaran Advocate for the respondent.

3. A similar issue had come up for consideration of this Tribunal in Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. International Rubber and General Industry, Bombay, disposed of by order No. 373/87-D, dated 11-5-1987.

After a detailed consideration of all aspects of the matter, it was held that such a product would fall under Item No. 16-A(2) of the Tariff Schedule. This decision followed the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Falcon Tyres -1985 (21) E.L.T. 786 and the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Madras Rubber Factory -1985 (22) E.L.T. 5. While Smt. Saxena reiterates the grounds set forth in the memo of appeal, Shri Lakshmikumaran, Advocate for the respondent relies on the aforesaid decisions and prays that the appeals be dismissed.

4. Having considered the submissions of both sides, we do not see any reason to depart from the earlier decision which was on a similar product. Accordingly, we hold that the subject goods also fall for classification under Item No. 16-A(2) of the Tariff Schedule.

Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss both the appeals.