FENNER (INDIA) LTD. versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADURAI

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 28-03-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

, 
FENNER (INDIA) LTD. 
v. 
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADURAI 
MARCH 28, 1995 
[A.M. AHMADI, CJ., S.P. BHARUCHA AND 
K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Central Excise Tariff Ac4 1985-Tariff Schedflle- lnterpretation-Chap-
ter Notei-£xplanatory Note of identical Heading in Harmonised Coding Sys-
A 
B 
te~levance of 
C. 
Central Excise Tariff Ac4 1985-Tariff Schedule-Headings 39.20 and 
39.2~/assijication of conveyor belting. 
The appellants manufactured PVC Impregnated cotton conveyor 
belting and PVC Impregnated Dame resistant colllery conveyor belting. The D 
length of the belting manufactured by the appellants varied from 100 
metres to 400 metres, the width varied from 600 mllllmetres to 1200 
milll!"etres and the thickness from 7 millimetres to 9.5 millimetres. 
From 28.2J986 to 9.2.1987 'other plates, sheets, Olm, foll and E 
strip ....... ' were classlfted under tariff Heading 39.20. 'Other. articles of 
plastics and articles or materials or heading Nos. 39.01 to 39.14' were 
classified under Heading No .. 39.22. Note ll(K) In Chapter 39 stated that 
heading_ No. 39.22 applied to 'transmission, conveyor or elevatOr belts ..... .". 
After 10.2.1987, Tariff Heading 39.22 became Tariff Heading 39.26 F 
and Note ll(k) was omitted. However, Explanatory Note to Heading 39.26 
In the Harmonised Coding System covered' articles, not elsewhere 
specified or Included, of plastic ...... or of other materials of headings 39.01 
to 39.14' and Included 'transmission, conveyor or elevator belts ...... .". 
The excise authorities contended that the products ~f the appellants - G 
were classifiable under Heading 39.20 whereas the appellants contended. 
that the products were classifiable, prior to 10.2.1987, under Heading 
39.22, and under Heading 39.26 on and after 10.2.1987. The Customs, 
Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal held that the products were 
'strip' and therefore, classifiable under Heading 39.20 relying upon the H 
1 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995) 3 S.C.R. 
A meaning of "strip" as given in concise Oxford Dictionary. 
B 
Hence, the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. In the instant case the Tariff Schedule contains rules for 
its interpretation which require that "for legal purposes classification shall 
be d•termined according to the terms of the headings and any relative 
Section or Chapter Notes .... ". The Notes relative to Chapter 39 ~tate that 
Heading 39.22 for the period 28.2.1986 to 9.2.1987 applies to conveyor belts. 
For this period Tariff Heading 39.22 must, therefore, be read as applicable 
C to the appellant's conveyor belts. For the period starting from 10.2.1987, 
the Explanatory Note to Tariff Heading 39.26 in the Harmonised Coding 
System, which is identifical to Tariff Heading 39.26 of the Tariff Schedule, 
must be taken to be a guide, for the Tariff Schedule is based upon the 
Harmonised Coding System. [7·F·G] 
D 
Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., (1985-22E) 
L.T. 3, distinguished. 
Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering, 3rd Ed,referred to. 
E 
2. An article which is over 100 metres but only upto UOO millimetres 
in width cannot be described as a "strip". Tariff Entries 39.20.11 and 
39.20.12 cannot, therefore, be made applicable to the belting made by the 
<1ppellants. [7-H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4600 of 
F 1989. 
With 
(C.A. No. 4421 of 1989) 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.89 of the Customs, Excise 
and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Order No. 526 of 
1989-C). 
Lakshmi Kumaran, V. Balachandran, R. N. Banerjee, R.N. Karan-
jawala, P.K Muilick and Bhaskar Pradhan for Mrs. M. Karanjawala for the 
H Appellants. 
r 
' 
FENNERLTD.v. C.C.E.[BHARUCHA,J.] 
3 
M. Gouri Shankar Murthy, P. Narsimhan and V. K. Verma for the A 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BHARUCHA, J. These appeals impugn the order dated 14th Septem-
ber, 1989, passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate B 
Tribunal dismissing the appeals filed before it by the two appellants. Each 
of the two appellants manufactures PVC impregna~ed cotton conveyor 
belting and PVC impregnated flame resistant colliery conveyor belting. The 
appellants contended before the tribunal that their products were classifi-
able under Tariff Entry 3922.90, whereas it was the case of the Excise 
authorities that they were classifiable under Tariff Entries 3920.11 or C 
3920.12, depending upon whether they were rigid
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.