COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE versus M/S. MATADOR FOAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 145 · Decided: 05-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE 
v. 
M/S. MATADOR FOAM AND ORS. 
·JANUARY 5, 2005 
[S.N. VARIAVA, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985; Tariff Headings _40.08 and 94.01 
and Notes under Chapters 40 and 94; Notification No.17511986 dated March 
1, 1986: 
Classification-Vulcanized rubber goods used in seats of vehicles-levy 
of excise duty under Tariff Headings 40.08 or 94.01-Held: Since the goods 
manufactured by the assessee could only be used in seats as cushions of seats! 
parts of seats, the goods appropriately fall under Tariff Heading 94.01-
A 
B 
c 
Hence, the duty leviable under the Tariff Heading 94.01. 
D 
Words and Phrases: 
'floor or ground'-Meaning of in the context a/Chapter Notes l(a) and 
2 to Chapter 94 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. 
Respondent-assessees are the manufacturers of vulcanized rubber 
goods which are cut to the shape of seats of vehicles. In the classification 
list filed by assessees, the product was shown under Tariff Heading 40.08 
E 
of the Excise Tariff Act. Assessing authorities claimed that the product 
was classifiable under Tariff Heading 94.01 and after serving show-cause 
notices to the assessees and hearing them, confirmed demand for F 
differential amount of duty, holding that Exemption Notification No.175/ 
1986 was not applicable to the product in question. The order was affirmed 
by the Appellate Authorities, but reversed by the Tribunal. Hence the 
present appeals. 
Appellant contended that Tariff Item 94.01 is a specific Item, which G 
deals with seats and parts thereof; that the goods are cut to the shape of 
seats and are only used in seats of buses, motor vehicles and/or two 
wheelers and thus the goods in question cannot fall into general entry 
covered by Tariff Heading 40.08. 
145 
H 
146 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2005) I S.C.R. 
A 
Respondent submitted that the goods in question are cushions falling 
under Chapter 40 and are thus covered by Tariff Item No.40.08 and 
excluded from the purview of Chapter 94. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD: I.I. Chapter Note l(a) of Chapter 94 of Central Excise Tariff 
Act, 1985 excludes cushions falling in Chapter 40. At the same time, 
Chapter Note 2(e) of Chapter 40 excludes articles which would fall in 
Chapter 90 of the Act. If the goods were mere cushions they may get 
covered by Chapter 40 and would then be excluded from Chapter 90. 
However, if the goods are a seat or a part thereof they get specifically 
C covered by Tariff Heading 94.01. In such cases, by virtue of Chapter Note 
2(e) to Chapter 40, these goods get excluded from Chapter 40. Between 
Tariff Headings 94.01 and 40.08, Tariff Heading 94.01 is a more specific 
Heading dealing with seats and parts thereof. It is an admitted position 
that the goods manufactured by the assessees are cut in the shape of seats 
D and are used only in seats. They are thus cushions of seats and are parts 
of seats. They then fall under Tariff Heading 94.01 and Tariff Heading 
40.08 thus get excluded. This view is also supported by H.S.N. Explanatory 
Note. Hence, the goods in question would fall under Tariff Heading 94.01 
of the Act. [150-B-C-D; 151-EJ 
E 
J.K. Foam Products v. C.C.E., Kanpur, (1997) 94 ELT 497 and C.C.E., 
Coimbatore v. Ajay Rubber, (1998) 100 ELT 478, approved. 
C.C.E., Madras v. MM Rubber Co. Ltd., Madras, (1984) 15 ELT 198, 
held inapplicable. 
F 
1.2. The term 'floor or ground' would also include floor of the car 
or vehicle. Seats made for vehicles are placed on the floor of the car or 
vehicle. Therefore, Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 94 of the Act would not 
exclude seats of vehicles. [150-H; 151-AI 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3832-3837 of 
G 1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22. I .1999 of the Central Excise 
Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A. Nos. E./ 
3450/91-0, 2793-2794-92-D and E/4593-4595/92-D in F.0. Nos. 78-83 of 
H 1999-D. 
L. 
C.C.E. v. MATADOR FOAM [VARIAVA. J.) 
147 
R. Venkataramani, G. Umapathy, P. Parrmeswaran, Ashok Panigrahi, A 
S. Gowthaman and B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellant. 
A.K. Jain, Rajesh Kumar, Rajesh Jain and Ms. Rajni for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.N. V ARIA VA, J. These Appeals are against the Judgment dated 
22nd of January 1999 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate 
~ 
Tribunal [CEGA T]. 
Briefly stated the facts are as follows. 
B 
c 
The question involved is whether the g
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.