LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
โš–๏ธ Ask the AI about your situation:๐Ÿš— Car Accident๐Ÿ’ผ Work / Job๐Ÿ  Housing / Eviction๐Ÿ‘ช Family / Divorce๐Ÿ“‹ Contract Dispute๐Ÿ’ฐ Money Owed

M/S. SPEEDWAY RUBBER CO. versus COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 826 · Decided: 07-05-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS. SPEEDWAY RUBBER CO. 
v. 
COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH 
MAY 7, 2002 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND RUMA PAL, JJ.) 
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985-Chapter 40, Note 9-Tariff items-
Sub-heading Nos. 4008, 2 I and 4016. 99-Goods-Classification of-Whether 
c to be under sub-heading 4008.21 or 4016.99-Note providing that further 
worked' goods not to fall under sub-heading 4008.2 I-Held, goods in 
question classifiable under sub-heading 4008.21 since manufacturing process 
of goods did not involve further working' and since the specific entry in 
heading 4008 would overrule general entry in heading 4016.-Jnterpretation 
Rules to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985-Rule 3(a). 
D 
Words and Phrases-'Surface working' and further working'-Meaning 
of in the context of Chapter 40 Note 9 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 
The question for consideration, in the present case is whether certain 
E 
goods i.e. 'plates', 'sheets' and 'strips' would be classified under Heading 4008 
or 4016 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 
The goods which were manufactured by the appellant were classified by 
it under sub-heading 4008.21. Revenue levied duty on the goods classifying 
the same under sub-heading 4016.99 holding that the goods were classifiable 
F 
under sub-heading 4008.21 only after amendment of Note 9 'Chapter 40'in 
1990 and since the demand of duty was for the period between July 1989 to 
December; 1989 the same would fall under sub-heading 4016.99. 
Note 9 of Chapter 40 before its amendment by Finance Act, 1990 covered 
'plate', 'sheets' or 'strips' which are of regular geometric shape, whether uncut 
G or cut to rectangular shape, whether printed or surface worked "but not 
otherwise cut to shape or further worked"ยท 
H 
Appellant-Manufacturer, in the manufacturing process used to place the 
'plates', 'sheets' and 'strips' in the dye and subjecting the same to pressing in 
826 
+-
... 
j 
.r 
...
.1 
~ 
~ 
--
-
SPEED\\' A Y RUBBER CO. r COMMISSIONER.CENTRAL EXCISE 
827 
the hydrolic press. 
Department confirmed the demand of duty. In appeal to Collector (appeals), 
the impugned goods were classified under sub-heading 4016.99. 
A 
Custom, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal classified the 
impugned products under sub-heading 4016.99 holding that the process of dye B 
and grooving by Hydraulic press fell within the meaning of'further worked' 
as it changed the basic character of the goods. 
In appeal to this Court appellant contended that goods would be classified 
under sub-heading 4008.21 since amendment could not be extended to 
classification list filed prior to that date and since the amendment was only C 
clarificatory in nature which neither restricted nor enlarged the scope of 
heading No. 4008 or 4016. 
Department contended that classification of the case under sub-heading 
4016.99 as 'other' articles was more appropriate and the same could not be D 
classified under sub-heading 4008.21 as the final product, after further 
processing, do not remain 'plates', 'sheets' and ;strips' as defined under Note 
9 of Chapter 40. 
Allowing the appeals, the C.ourt 
HELD: I. The goods in question would be classified under sub-heading 
4008.21 and not under sub-heading 4016.99. As per Rule 3(a) of the 
Interpretation Rules to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, "The heading which 
provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing 
E 
a more general description". Accordingly, heading No. 40.08 provides more 
specific description to the impugned goods than heading No. 40.16 and hence, F 
the specific entry should overrule the general entry. Moreover, the 
manufacturing process involved 'surface working' and does not include 'further 
working'. This is evident from the interpretation of Note 9 of Chapter 40, that 
further working would envisage an activity other than those mentioned therein. 
1833-D, El G 
2. To determine the nature of the impugned goods, the difference between 
"surface worked" and "further worked" is significant. "Surface working" 
means working on the surface of the material. "Surface working" may include 
coating, polishing, colouring, embossing, corrugating or even growing when 
such grooving is only on the surface of the material. 1833-D, El 
H 
828 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
12002] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4844-4846 of 
B 
c 
1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.12.98 of the Customs Excise and 
Gold (Control) Appellate Tribun

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