Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Elgi Tyre And Tread Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 2 January, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1992(61)ELT107(TRI-DEL)
ORDER N.K. Bajpai, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras on the question of classification of vulcanised, hardened, precured tread rubber which has been held to fall under Item 16A(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff, while the appellants were claiming its assessment under Item 68. Their alternative submission before the lower authorities was that in the event of the classification of goods being under Item 16A(2), they were entitled to exemption from duty under Notification 47/76-C.E., dated 9-3-1976 as amended by the Notification 193/80-C.E., dated 8-12-1980. Both the lower authorities had decided against the appellants, after considering the various grounds taken by the appellants before them.
2. The impugned orders have been assailed on the ground that the subject product is not in the form of plates, sheets and strips as contemplated under Item 16A (2); that the goods are hardened rubber products and the authorities have not proved that they are "unhardened" rubber products. Their further claim is that the same goods have been subjected to chemical examination by Chemical Examiner, Cochin; Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam and National Chemical Laboratory, Pune and have been held to be hardened rubber, but this fact, which was placed before the Collector (Appeals), has not been taken into consideration by him. The appellants have also disputed the interpretation of the lower authorities placed on Notification 43/76 on the expression "non-curing".
3. Arguing for the appellants, Shri. V. Sridharan, Ld. Counsel, referred to the Flow Chart for the manufacture of the subject goods which was submitted by them to the Assistant Collector in which the chemical composition and method of manufacture was explained. It would be useful to refer to the relevant portions of this Flow Chart, which the Ld. Counsel had read out at the hearing:
"PROCESS OF OF VULCANISED AND RUBBER PRODUCT NON-CURING (PRECURED) FOR TYRES.
---
FLOW CHART The chemical composition of the compound consists of the following ingredients :
NATURAL RUBBER SYNTHETIC RUBBER FILLERS SUCH AS CARBON BLACK PEPTISERS LIKE RENACIT ACTIVATORS LIKE STERIC ACID ACCELERATORS LIKE MOZ CURING AGENTS SUCH AS SULPHUR ANTIOXIDENTS LIKE WAX RETARDERS AND TACKNIFYING AGENTS SOFTENERS LIKE PROCESS OIL METHOD OF - usual size and its use Intermix - A proper composition of Natural Rubber and Synthetic Rubber is blended with peptiser along with fillers such as carbon black and then dumped in an intermix and closed for sometime. After that process oil is mixed for better processability and disposition alongwith activators. After this stage mixing, the stock is allowed to age, in the aging room and then again the stock is reprocessed in intermix with curators and vulcanizer and this completes the second stage mixing.
MILLS - After the above process in the Intermix the mixed rubber is dumped in the dumpmill where it is sheeted out and passed through cooling conveyors and placed on skids.
After ageing, the stock goes to warming mill and then to feedmill for further processing.
EXTRUDER - From the feedmill it goes to the extruder, through conveyors, the extruder yields the rubber and extrudes to the required size. Then it is passed through cooling conveyors and kept on skids.
PRESS - The above stock then comes to the Hydraulic press where it is precured and hardened with different matrix designs in a powerful hydraulic press under appropriate heat and pressure. The pressed precured hardened matrix designed belts then pass through belts sander where it is sandered and cleaned and cemented and then packed with polyfilm and placed in cartons.
The size of the final material at present will have the following approximate dimensions:
THICKNESS : 17 mm WIDTH : 180 to 220 mm LENGTH : 9000 mm
The above-mentioned dimensions are for use in giant truck tyres of size 900 x 20 and 1000 x 20. But for the other rubber tyres there would be variation in sizes, the actual measurements for which will be intimated as and when production starts, END-USE: The above product which is fully cured and hardened rubber product is adhered to the buffed casing of an automative tyre. The adherence of this product namely cured and hardened rubber to the buffed casing which is also cured is done by means of a vulcanised bonding gum.
This produce is usable for retreading of tyres. This being a product having been introduced in India for the first time there is no common nomenclature for this product but we name the same as precured tread rubber for tyres.
This product being a vulcanised and hardened rubber product with matrix designs on it, it is classifiable only under T.I. 68 and not under T.I. 16A(2)."
4. Shri Sridharan submitted that moulding and vulcanising are done simultaneously and it is for this reason that the product is called "precured". He explained that beause of the tread portion on the product, it is not covered by the definition of "sheets' as appearing in Item 16A(2). He submitted that it is the final form in which the goods are cleared, which is relevant for purposes of determining the classification of the goods, and the fact that the product is 3-dimensional in character, should not make it a plate, sheet or strip.
5. The Ld. Counsel cited the ISI Glossary of Terms used in Rubber Industry to prove that vulcanisation and curing are one and the same inasmuch as this document refers to vulcanisation for giving the meaning of the term "cure". The expression "vulcanisation" as defined in the Glossary is as under :
"4.16. Vulcanization - a process in which rubber through a change in its chemical structure (for example, cross linking), is converted into a condition in which elastic properties are conferred or re-established or improved or extended over a greater range of temperature. In some cases, the process is carried to a point where the substance becomes rigid."
6. He also referred to the Annual Book of ASTM Standards (1982), 'Rubber/ Technology and Manufacture' (Second Edition) edited by CM. Blow and C. Hepburn and the Dictionary of Rubber by K.F. Heinisch, Dr. techn. (Applied Science Publishers Ltd., London) for the purpose of definition of the word 'vulcanisation' and 'curing'.
7. He also placed copy of Board's letter F. No. 99/18/89-CX. 3, dated the 10th November, 1989 addressed to all Collectors of Central Excise about classification of precured synthetic tread material for retreading/resoling of tyres in which the decision of Tariff Conference of Collectors held in June, 1989 was conveyed in the following words:
"... After discussion, the conference came to the view that the goods will be classifiable under sub-heading 4008.21 and the benefit of Notification 47/76-C.E., dated 9-3-1976, as amended would also be available to such goods."
8. The matter was, further, examined in the Board's office. It is reported that the goods, in question, emerge at the initial stages in the form of plates, sheets, or strips as per the definition of plates, sheets or strips given in Chapter Note 9 of Chapter 40. However, thereafter, the goods are moulded, their edges rounded and the shape of the cross-section becomes a trapezoid. As a result, the goods finally do not remain plates, sheets or strips as defined in Chapter Note 9 of Chapter 40. The elaborate process conducted on the goods cannot be called mere 'surface working', but, can be called 'further working' as per Chapter Note 9 of Chapter 40. As a result, such goods cannot be classified under sub-heading 4008.21, but would merit classification under sub-heading 4016.99. Consequently, there would be no question of extending the benefit of Notification 47/76-C.E., dated 9-3-1976, as amended, to such goods.
9. Shri Sridharan also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ahmedabad Manufacturing Co. -1985 (21) E.L.T. 633 according to which one has to look at the final product as it emerges after the stage of production. Although Shri Sridharan initially claimed that a calendering machine was necessary for making a sheet, when further asked whether there is anything oh record to show that any calendering machine was installed in the factory, he withdrew his arguments about calendering.
10. Shri Sridharan also referred to the definition of profile appearing in the publication Moulding of Plastics edited by Norber M.Bikales which was as under :
"Profile - The cross-sectional shape of the extrudate; usually reserved for complex shapes. Also, the extrudate with a complex cross-section."
11. The Ld. Counsel, thereafter, explained with reference to the Publication "The Applied Science of Rubber" edited by W.J.S. Naunton that in an extruder, a die has to be used to produce the profile desired and submitted that one could use any profile for the desired shape. He also referred to the Dictionary of Rubber in which extrusion is defined as under :
"Extrusion - Continuous method of shaping profiles by means of an extruder. The compound is forced by a screw through an opening (die) which is the correct shape of the profile. Uses - mainly for hose-lines, tyre treads, seals."
12. He also referred to the Explanatory Notes of H.S.N. to Chapter Heading 40.08 and submitted that Profile shapes are different from plates, sheets and strips. He also placed a copy of Letter No. 57/35/86-CX. 2, dated 13-8-1986 regarding profile shapes of non-cellular rubber and submitted that the Ministry had referred to the need for keeping the Explanatory Notes of H.S.N. in view while deciding the classification of profile shapes. Thereafter, he referred to the Explanatory Notes to Heading 40.08 which excludes plates, sheets and strips and submitted that all the authorities cited by him pointed to the only conclusion that profile shapes were different from plates, sheets and strips and the product in question, not being in the form of plates, sheets and strips, but having a profile shape, was excluded from the purview of Item 16A(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.
13. Arguing for the Department, Shri Nair, the Ld. J.D.R. started by saying that the appellants had not submitted any reply to the show cause notice as such, but had only made written submissions at the time of hearing. He stated that the definition of sheets, not having been provided in the Tariff or anywhere else and the Flow Chart, submitted by the appellants showing that the product was "sheeted out" in the dump mill and then passed through cooling conveyors, it was only in the form of sheets when it finally emerged from the process of manufacture.
14. Referring to the use of words "non-curing" in Notification 47/76, Shri Nair submitted that this expression can only mean that the product covered by the exemption was not cured. He referred to the Websters Lexicon in which the expression "cure" was defined to mean "vulcanize". He submitted that the rules of interpretation require that while interpreting an exemption notification, no part of the notification should be rendered redundant and cited the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of C. Ex., Bhubaneshwar v. Orissa Weavers Co-operative Spinning Mills -1985 (21) E.L.T. 348.
15. While replying to the arguments by Shri Nair, Shri Sridharan submitted that the expression "vulcanized" and "non-curing" means that the product is vulcanized and does not require any further curing. He explained that on the basis of the authorities cited by him, it would be seen that vulcanization and curing are synonymous terms. He also referred to the ISI Glossary of Terms used in the Rubber Industry and submitted that curing could also be partial since terms like "semi-cure" or "part-cure" and "under cure" were also defined in the Glossary. He submitted that the simultaneous use of the expressions "non-curing" and "vulcanized" in the notification support his argument that the exemption was available to a vulcanized rubber product which did not require any further curing.
16. He also cited the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of M. Subbarao v. P.V.K. Krishna Rao (deceased) - A.I.R. 1989 Supreme Court 2187 and referred to the following stand from para 4 :-
"In this connection, we may point out that it is well-settled that the Court hearing a suit or appeal can take into account events which are subsequent to the filing of the suit in order to give appropriate relief or mould the relief appropriately."
17. We have carefully considered the appeal as well as the rival submissions and have perused the case records. A representative sample of the product was tested in the Madras Custom House Laboratory and the report of the Chemical Examiner dated 5-7-1984, which is relevant for determining the question of classification is as under :
"REPORT : The sample is black coloured sheet having grooves on one side It is composed of rubber, carbon black, sulphur and additives.
Please see note below:
NOTE : 1. Hard rubber is described in "1980 annual books of ASTM Standards part 37 ANST/ASTM D 2135-67 (Reapproved 1979) as follows :
"Hard rubber shall be understood to refer to composition having a ratio of combined sulphur to rubber hydrocarbon in excess of 15%".
2. The Vander Bill Rubber Hand Book 1958, on page 158 states "with natural rubber, three types of vulcanizates may be obtained depending on the quantity of sulphur used in compounding.
1. Soft rubber with 3 per cent sulphur or less.
2. Semi-hard rubber with sulphur content of 20-30 per cent.
3. Ebonites (hard rubber) with a theoretical combined sulphur content of 47 per cent.
3. As per party's declaration, the sample under reference contains only three parts of sulphur in one hundred twenty parts of rubber hydrocarbon. Hence, the product contains too low a percentage of sulphur to be considered as hard rubber.
4. The sample is flexible in nature.
Considering the above facts, the product may be considered as unhardened rubber only.
The sample is described in the test memo as vulcanized hardened precured tread rubber. The basis on which the sample is described as "Hardened" may be clarified."
19. The appellants furnished the following clarification in their letter dated 8-9-1984.
"2. We wish to submit that in the process of manufacture of Precured Rubber the extruded rubber is moulded in the hydraulic press. The extruded rubber possessing a shore hardness of 45 approx. is increased to shore hardness of 65 while moulding in the Hydraulic press. It is in this stage of moulding that the rubber obtains its increased hardness from 45 to 65 shore hardness and it is due to this reason we have termed our product as hardened rubber.
3. We would like to add herein that the word 'Unhardened' used in the tariff description 16A(2) would only mean a product of rubber which is not at all subjected to a process of hardening. In our case, our product namely Precured Tread Rubber is subjected to a process of hardening.
4. We further submit that we classified our Precured Tread Rubber as Vulcanised Hardened Precured Tread Rubber and as "Hardened" and under T.I. 68 based only on the strength of the test report of the Chemical Examiner, Customs House, Cochin on the same product produced by Ms. Mantex Industries, Kanjikode West, Palghat, as per Trichur Division, Assistant Collector, C. No. IV/16/134/82, dated 29-1-1983 as contained in para 1 of the notice Show Cause C. No. V/16A/15/1/84 CX. Adj dt. 3-84 of the Collector, Central Excise, Cochin. The extract is enclosed."
20. The questions which fall for our consideration are whether -
(a) the product is in the form of plates, sheets and strips; (b) the product is 'unhardened' (c) in terms of exemption Notification 47/76 dated 9-3-1976, as amended, the product is 'vulcanised rubber product, non-curing for tyres and tubes" so as to be eligible for the exemption.
21. We observe that both the Assistant Collector as well as Collector (Appeals) have held that in view of details of the method of manufacture of the product as given by the appellants, themselves, in their Flow Chart where it is stated that after the dumping of the 'Intermix' in the dump mill, it is "sheeted out", the product apparently comes out in the form of sheets. The lower authorities have held that the word 'sheet' is wide enough to include perforated sheets, or sheet with grooves, etc. We agree with them that in the absence of any definition of the word "sheet" in the tariff itself, it has to be interpreted to include all types of sheets including grooved sheets.
Shri Sridharan has contested this conclusion by referring to the process of extrusion in which 'profiles shapes' different from plates, sheets and strips are produced and has tried to support his arguments by referring to various authorities on rubber technology. We are unable to accept the elaborate arguments in the face of the specific mention of "sheeting out" of the product in the Flow Chart. The Ld. Counsel submitted that it is the form in which the product finally appears and this being with matrix designs on one side that it has to be considered for levy of excise duty. While there can be no quarrel with this principle, we have seen that a grooved sheet has also to be considered a sheet and, in this view of the matter, we cannot but reject the contention of the Ld. Counsel on this point. Thus, the answer to the first question is that by the manufacturer's own document - namely, the Flow Chart - the product has rightly been considered to be a sheet and is covered by entry 16A(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.
22. The next question here to consider is whether the product is unhardened. The Chemical Examiner has stated that three types of vulcanisers may be obtained depending upon the quantity of sulphur used and that, as per the appellants' own declaration, the product contains only three parts of sulphur in one hundred twenty parts of rubber hydrocarbons. This being too low a percentage of sulphur, the product could not be considered to be hardened rubber. Besides, on examination, the same was found to be flexible - an observation which has also been confirmed by Collector (Appeals). This observation also stands to reason because, in order to be used for retreading of tyres, the product has to be flexible and unhardened, otherwise, it cannot be used for that purpose. In the face of such overwhelming evidence and the conclusion reached by the lower authorities being based on the test report, it cannot be said, as the appellants have submitted in ground (6) of their appeal, that the lower authorities had not proved that the impugned goods were 'unhardened' rubber products. We also do not see any reason why the test report of the product, a representative sample of which was drawn from the appellants' own factory, should be discarded and the report of Chemical Examiner, Cochin on a product manufactured by another party (M/s. Mantek Industries, Palghat) should be accepted. Even though the lower authorities have not indicated why they have rejected this plea, it does not stand to reason why we should accept this plea which is devoid of any merit.
23. The appellants have stated in ground No. (8) of their appeal that the same impugned goods were tested by the Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam and National Chemical Laboratory, Pune and have been held by them to be 'hardened rubber' and that this fact has not been taken into consideration by Collector (Appeals). Firstly, there is nothing on record to show that the samples sent to these authorities were drawn in the presence of the Central Excise Officers. Therefore, one is unable to accept the reports as relating to the very same goods which are the subject-matter of the dispute. Further, both the reports are cryptic as against the detailed report of Chemical Examiner, Madras who has taken pains to explain that one could obtain three varieties of rubber depending upon the percentage of 'sulphur' used viz. soft rubber, semi-hard rubber and hard rubber. When this report was furnished to the appellants, and they were asked to state the basis on which they had described their product to be 'hardened', the appellants replied in their letter dated 8-9-1984 as under :
"3. We should like to add herein that the word 'Unhardened' used in the tariff description 16A(2) would only mean a product of rubber which is not at all subjected to a process of hardening. In our case, our product namely Precured Tread Rubber is subjected to a process of hardening.
4. We further submit that we classified our Precured Tread Rubber as Vulcanised Hardened Precured Tread Rubber and as 'Hardened' and under T.I. 68 based only on the strength of the test report of the Chemical Examiner, Customs House, Cochin on the same product produced by Ms. Mantek Industries, Kanjikode West, Palghat, as per Trichur Division, Assistant Collector, C. No. IV/16/134/82 dated 29-1-1983. as contained in para 1 of the notice Show Cause C. No. V/16A/15/1/84 CX. Adj. dated 3-1984 of the Collector, Central Excise, Cochin. The extract is enclosed."
24. We have already observed that there was no understandable reason why the test report of goods manufactured by another manufacturer should have been made the basis of the declaration of the subject goods by the appellants. Thus, this plea also fails and is rejected.
25. Ground No. (9) in the present appeal is that one of their grounds before Collector (Appeals) was that classification for central excise purposes should not be decided on the basis of C.C.C.N. and that Collector (Appeals) did not consider this plea. We notice that the reference to the Explanation in Section VH/Chapter 40 of B.T.N. is for the simple purpose of defining the term "hardened rubber" (as one which is obtained by vulcanising rubber with a high proportion of sulphur) has been cited by the Chemical Examiner himself on the basis of 'Rubber Hand Book by Vander Bilt (1958). We do not see how this reference to the Explanation in the C.C.C.N. which is in conformity with an authoritative text on rubber technology has affected the appellants' case and consequently reject this plea too.
26. Having thus come to the conclusion that the product is correctly classifiable under Item 16A(2), we now proceed to consider the eligibility of the product for exemption under Notification 47/76:C.E., dated 9-3-1976, as amended. The Ld. Counsel, Shri Sridharan has submitted copies of correspondence between the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin and Jaipur with the Board as well as the proceedings of the Tariff Conference and connected papers relating to the classification of the product under the new Central Excise Tariff. All these documents were not available before any of the lower authorities and the appellants' counsel has moved an application for urging additional evidence duly supported by an affidavit. Their plea in the application is that the classification of the very same product in the context of the new Central Excise Tariff Act was considered in a Tariff Conference and subsequently by the Board. Their submission is that the minutes of this North Zone Tariff Conference, Board's circular F. No. 61/89-CX. 3, dated 10-11-1989 and other correspondence submitted in the Paper Book would be relevant and useful for appreciating the issue arising in the present appeal and for deciding the correct classification and the availability of exemption under Notification 47/76-C.E., dated 9-3-1976. We have, after hearing both sides, considered this application and allowed it by a separate order.
27. Notification No. 47/76-C.E., dated 9-3-1976, as amended by Notification No. 193/80-C.E., dt. 8-12-1980 of which the appellants have claimed the benefit is as under :
"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts vulcanised rubber products, non-curing, for tyres, falling under sub-item 2 of Item 16A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon."
28. It is admitted position that the product in question, is a vulcanised rubber product and is used for retreading tyres. We have to interpret the expression "non-curing" for deciding whether the appellants' product is eligible for the exemption. While the lower authorities have interpreted it to mean rubber products, which are not cured, the appllants' contention is that it refers to products which do not require any further curing. Shri Sridharan, the Ld. Counsel for the appellants, strenuously, argued that, on the basis of the authorities cited by him, the terms "vulcanisation" and "curing" being synonymous, the use of the word "non-curing" in addition to "vulcanised" in the notification is intended to clarify that the product does not need any further curing once it has been vulcanised. The new evidence placed before us by the Ld. Counsel shows that the Collectors of Central Excise had felt in the Tariff Conference that there was some mistake in the drafting of the notification and the Ld. Member of the Board had desired that the file leading upto the issue of the notification may be examined to see the intention behind its issue. It appears that, thereafter, the Board sent the letter dated 10-11-1989 to the Collectors of Central Excise, informing them that the matter was examined in the light of Chapter Note (9) of Chapter 40, and it was decided that inasmuch as the goods would merit classification under sub-heading 4016.99, the question of extending benefit of Notification 47/76-C.E. would not arise. All this does not lead us anywhere because what we have to decide is the availability of the exemption under the old tariff, particularly because the scope of the entries in the new tariff is very different from that in the old tariff.
29. Shri Sridharan has also placed before us a copy of letter No. 3/1/88 Res dated 13-1-1988 from the Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam, to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kottayam, the relevant portion of which is as under :
"As desired by you, the question of classification of pre-cured tread has been examined by us and our comments are given below:
Product is considered vulcanised (cured) when it has been treated chemically with sulphur or any other vulcanising agent to significant level. Pre-cured tread, as the name implies, is already cured and, therefore, can be classified as vulcanised product. When it is used for treading of tyres it is bonded to the tyre carcass using a Cushion Gum compound. During the second curing process only the cushion gum is getting cured and not tread. As far as we understand, the term 'non-curing' as mentioned in notification No. 40.08 means a product which does not require any further curing. Under the above circumstances, we feel that pre-cured tread is eligible for duty exemption under your notification number referred to above...."
[Emphasis supplied]
30. When we look at the words used in the notification and keep in mind the fact that 'vulcanisation' and 'curing' are synonymous terms, at first sight, there does appear a possibility of contradiction in the simultaneous use of the two words "vulcanised" and "non-curing" in the notification relating to rubber products. The explanation given by the Ld. JDR is that 'non-curing' means 'not cured'. The first expression is an adjective and should ordinarily qualify a noun, whereas the second (not cured) refers to a state of the product. Moreover, if what Shri Nair says is correct, the simpler expression 'not-cured' or non-cured' would have been used although this would have created a contradiction inasmuch as the same product could not be 'vulcanised' as well as "not cured" at the same time. We are, therefore, entitled to discard this interpretation in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Union of India v. Ram Chandra Sambhaji Khan-dekar -1980 (6) E.L.T. 663 (S.C.) in which the Apex Court observed as under while interpreting an exemption notification:
"It is well-settled rule of interpretation applicable alike to the rule making authority as to the legislature that where there are two expressions which could have been used to convey a certain intention, but one of these expressions conveys that intention less clearly than the other, it is proper to conclude that if the draftsman used that one of the two expressions which would convey the intention less clearly, he does not intend to convey that intention at all. Moreover, here the dictates of grammar as well as language compel us to take the view that the...."
31. Thus, we see that it would not be proper to infer that the expression 'non-curing' used in the notification means 'non-cured' or 'not cured'. The dictates of grammar as well as of language would also lead us to an altogether different conclusion as we will presently see when we examine the interpretation which naturally comes on the words "non-curing" which has been used as an adjective.
32. The explanation given in the letter of the Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam that the term 'non-curing' means a product which does not require any further curing appears more plausible, also because of its use as an adjective. This is, further, supported by the argument of Shri Sridharan that the I.S.I. Glossary does refer to terms "semi-cure or part cure" as well as "under cure" besides the term "cure" and "vulcanisation". In other words, the notification exempts vulcanised rubber products of the non-curing type - meaning those which do not need any further curing. This also fits in with the clarification of the Rubber Research Institute that the product, in question, when used for re-treading a tyre does not require any further curing. It is bonded to the tyre carcass using a cushion gum compound and during this process only the cushion gum is getting cured and not the tread. We consider this explanation to be acceptable because, according to the well-accepted principles of interpretation of statutes, no words of the notification are rendered redundant in placing this interpretation on it and it is interpreted in its ordinary, natural and grammatical sense. This is in conformity with the observations of the Madras High Court in the case of Witco Match Works v. Union of India -1983 (12) E.L.T. 345.
33. In this view of the matter, the product, in question, is eligible for exemption under Notification 47/76-C.E., dt. 9-3-1976, as amended by Notification 193/80-C.E., dt. 8-12-1980. The orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, while upholding the classification under Item 16A(2).