LexM/S. KEMROCKINDUSTRIES & EXPORTS LTD versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
>- MIS. KEMROCKINDUSTRIES & EXPORTS LTD. A v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, V ADODARA MARCH 29, 2007 [S.H. KAPADIA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] B ~ ..... Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Headings 39.01; 39.20 and 70.14: " Classification-Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastics-Sub-heading 39.01 c and 39.20 or 70.14-Applicability of-Held: Fibre Glass Mat being used as raw material in manufacturing the product in question, which is not article of glass ware to fall under Heading 70.14 of the Act-Since the product in question is a composite item, the test of essentiality in terms of Rule 3(b) of the Rules for interpretation of tariff entry would apply-Taking into consideration essentiality aspect, and applying the test of essentiality, the D product in question falls under the Heading 39.01-Hence, no infirmity -; found in the order of the Tribunal classifYing the goods under the Heading _J 39.01. Test of essentiality-Application in the context of classification of composite product-Discussed E The question which arose for determination in this appeal was as to whether the Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastics manufactured by the assessee- company would fall under the Heading 70.14 of the Schedule to the Central i> Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as claimed by the assessee-manufacturer or classifiable under Heading 39.20 of the Act as classified by the Revenue. F )'--. Dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee and allowing the appeal filed by the Revenue, the Court HELD: 1.The assessee makes use of Fibre Glass Mat of suitable specification and thereafter impregnates the said Mat with a suitable resin, G catalyst, pigment and accelerator. On impregnation/injection, the pigment spreads throughout the mat. This impregnation gives stiffness to the mat. '")-- The glass fibre mat is used as a raw material to manufacture roofing sheets, I --, 547 H 548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R. A panels, doors etc. It is this stiffness which provides value addition to the fibre glass mat in the sense that the strength of the mat gained by impregnation makes the mat strong enough to be used in partitions, roofs etc. But for that stiffness, the fibre glass mat would not be in a position to be used as a roofing sheet. Further, the 'glass fibre mat' is not an article of glassware per se B under Heading 70.14 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. [Para 5) [551-A-B-C) 2.1. Under Heading 39.20 of the Act, sheets of plastic, laminated supported or combined with other materials, stand covered as plastics and articles thereof. On the other hand, Heading 70.14 falls under Chapter 70, which refers to 'glass and glassware'. The item in question is a composite C item. However, as found by the Revenue, the glass fibre mat when impregnated with plastic gains certain amount of stiffness which helps manufacture of roofs and partitions. In the present case, since the article in question is a composite article, the test of essentiality shall apply. [551-E-F] 2.2. The test of essentiality refers to "essential character". The test D states that, if the manufactured goods has the essential character, mainly of stiffness, required for the manufacture of roofs, partitions etc. then one has to treat the item in question as an article of plastic. [Para 6) (551-F] 2.3. In the present case, Rule 3(b) of the Rules for the interpretation of tariff entries would apply. The said Rule require that composite goods, E mixtures and goods put up in sets have to be classified on the classification of that material or component which gives to the product their essential character. If the manufacture of roofs, partitions etc. are kept in mind, then the stiffness is the main attribute of such a product. The glass fibre mat when impregnated gives stiffness which helps in the manufacture of roofs, F partitions etc. e.g., the item will fall under Heading 39.01/06 of the previous Customs Tariff Act since plastic gives higher degree of insulation quality. (Para 6) [551-F-H; 552-A] G H 3. No infirmity is found in the impugned judgment of the CEGAT. [Para 7) (552-B) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 527 of2002 From the final Order No.185/2001-D dated 11.09.2001 in Appeal No. 1994-R/97mum. Passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi) ..... I JI -\ d lo,. 'f- KEM!tOCK 1NOUSTRIES & EXPORTS LTD. v. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA [KAPADIA, J.J549 Ramesh Singh, Bina Gup
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.