Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Balkrishna Industries Ltd on 16 March, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL No. E/86/04 E/CO-27/11 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. BPS(289)70/2003 dated 5.9.2003 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Aurangabad) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President and Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Appellant Vs. Balkrishna Industries Ltd. Respondent Appearance: Shri Y.K. Agarwal, Additional Commissioner (AR), for appellant Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate, for respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President and Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 16.3.2012 Date of Decision: 16.3.2012 ORDER NO Per: S.S. Kang Heard both sides.
2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the rubberised tyre cord fabric manufactured by the respondent is held to be classifiable under Heading 59.06 of the Tariff. The Revenue is challenging the classification of the product on the ground that the same is classifiable under Heading 59.02 of the Tariff. We find that this issue is already settled by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Bangalore vs. Vikrant Tyres Ltd. reported in 2005 (179) ELT 542 (Tri.-LB) against the Revenue. The Tribunal held as under:-
6. It is to be noted that Heading 5902 is specific for tyre cord fabric. Its sub-headings cover all varieties of tyre cord fabrics. HSN Notes to Heading 5902 explains the coverage of the heading as under :-
"This heading covers tyre cord fabric, whether or not dipped or impregnated with rubber or plastics.
These fabrics are used in the manufacture of tyres and consist of a warp of parallel filament yarns, held in place, at specific distances, by weft yarns. The warp always consists of high tenacity yarns of nylon or other polyamides, polyesters or viscose rayon, while the weft, widely-spaced and intended solely to hold the warp in place, may consist of other yarns. For the description of high tenacity yarn, see Note 6 to Section XI.
The heading does not cover other woven fabrics used in the manufacture of tyres nor fabrics of yarns which do not meet the specification of Note 6 to Section XI (Chapter 54 or Heading 59.03 or 59.06, as the case may be)."
The above note makes it clear that dipping and impregnating are additional processes carried out on tyre cord fabric. Thus, tyre cord fabrics are manufactured and sold either as plain or after dipping and impregnating. In fact, both these varieties are bought by the respondents. The dispute in question is about the effect of further processes. HSN note does not include coating of rubber or calendaring as processes in the manufacture of tyre and tube. In fact, the Revenue's appeal itself states that rubber coating and calendering processes are carried out to "build tyres". From these, it is amply clear that the processes in question take place subsequent to the completion of the manufacture of tyre cord fabrics and these processes cannot be treated as forming part of the manufacture of tyre cord fabrics or as processes incidental or ancillary to manufacture of tyre cord fabrics. Instead, they are processes involved in the manufacture of tyres or other products. Accordingly, tyre cord fabrics subjected to these processes should be treated as falling outside the scope of Heading 5902.
3. Further, we find that the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Goa and Chennai vs. MRF Ltd. reported in 2005 (180) ELT 145 (SC) held that the rubberised tyre cord fabric is classifiable under Chapter Heading 59.06 of the Tariff. The Honble Supreme Court held as under:-
15. In short, the controversy regarding classifiability of Rubberised Tyre Cord Fabric is no more res integra. The said product is classifiable under Chapter Heading 59.06. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal on this point.
4. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated in Court) (Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President tvu 1 2