LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

M/S HINDUSTAN FERODO LTD. versus THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 525 · Decided: 04-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA, S.C. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

MIS HINDUSTAN FERODO LTD. 
A 
v. 
THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY 
DECEMBER 4, 1996 
[S.P. BHARUCHA AND S.C. SEN, J.J.] 
B 
Central Excise Tariff: Item 22F-Scope oj 
Excise Duty-Rings punched from asbestos Boards and Asbestos 
fab1ics-Excise authorities holding that rings fell under Item 22-F-Tribunal C 
upholding the findings of authorities-Evidence led by assessee viz. affidavits 
of its senior Manager and of a man in the business of asbestos not accepted 
by Tribunal on the gmund that deponents were "not the right persons to give 
opinion on the type of products"-Appeal against the order of Tribunal-Held, 
it was wrong of the Tribunal to find that the deponents of affidavits were "not 
the right persons to give opinion on the type of products"-The onus of D 
establishing that the said rings fell within Item 22-F lay upon the revenue-17ie 
Revenue led no evidence-The onus was not discharged-Assuming that the 
Tribunal was right in rejecting the evidence produced on behalf of the 
appellants, the appeal should, nonetheless, have been allowed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1425 of E 
1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.4.87 of the Customs Excise 
and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A. No. E.D. (SB) 
(T) A. No. 817 of 1983-Bl 
F 
S. Ganesh, Rajiv Tyagi, U.A. Rana and Sudhanshu Tripathi for 
Gagrat & Co. for the Appellant. 
N.K. Bajpayee, R.S. Rana and P. Parmeswaran for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
G 
The articles with which this appeal is concerned are rings punched 
from asbestos boards and two types of asbestos fabrics, namely special 
fabrics in a coil of continuous length and M.R. Grey in rolls. The Customs, 
Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in the order under appeal H 
525 
526 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A upheld the findings of the authorities below that the said rings fell under 
Item 22-F of the Central Excise Tariff which, so far as is relevant, reads 
thus: 
B 
"22-F. Mineral fibres and yarn and manufactures therefrom, in or 
in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily 
carried on with the aid of power, the following, namely : 
xxxx 
xxxx 
xxxx 
(2) asbestos fibre and yarn: 
xxxx 
xxxx 
xxxx" 
The Tribunal rejected the contention of the appellants that the said 
rings were intermediate products in the manufacture of brake linings and 
clutch facings, that they were brittle and fragile, and that they were not 
JD marketable. In this behalf the appellants had produced before the Tribunal 
three affidavits, of which we may refer to tWo. The one affidavit was made 
by a Senior Manager, Technical, Sales, in the appellants' employment. He 
stated on the basis of his experience and knowledge, that M.R. Grey solid 
woven asbestos rolls had, generally, no industrial application except in the 
manufacture of woven type brake linings. Also, that special long fibre 
lE asbestos rings, being weak and porous, were generally not usable for 
commercial application other than in the manufacture of moulded clutch 
facings, after treatment and chemical processing. Before treatment and 
chemical processing, these rings broke on slight impact and could not 
withstand friction. Asbestos cloth was impregnated in resin and cured in 
:F 
moulds for making clutch facings. The other affidavit was of a man in the 
business of asbestos products in a large way since 1957. He stated that he 
had been shown BFB-9 cut rings and MR-Grey, that he had not dealt 
therewith, and that, to his knowledge, they were not available in the market. 
During his time in business not a single customer had either enquired or 
~ placed orders for the supply of articles such as the above. The Revenue 
J 
led no evidence. 
The Tribunal referred in the order under appeal, to process drawings 
and came to the conclusion that the duty was sought to be levied at the 
fourth stage of manufacture in the appellants factory. The samples of the 
f 
said rings which were shown to the Tribunal, arose after this stage. They 
HINDUSTAN FER ODO LTD. v. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE 527 
were in a finished form. There was nothing elementary or crude about A 
them. As asbestos products, they were fully manufactured. Nothing further 
was required to be done to make them fully manufactured asbestos 
products. The appellants' contention that the said rings were brittle and 
fragile articles and hence not marketable "was simply not true. We e

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.