Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Royal Cushion Vinyl Products Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Excise on 16 February, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1994(71)ELT833(TRI-DEL)
ORDER G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. This is an appeal preferred against the impugned order dated 10-4-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay.
2. The point to be considered in this appeal is whether Vinyl Floor Coverings manufactured by the appellant are classifiable under 22F(4) as claimed by the appellants or under 22G of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Act as held by the Department.
3. The relevant Tariff Entries No. 22F and 22G are as follows :-
* * * * * * *
4. Samples of the products were drawn by the Department and report by the Deputy Chief Chemist indicating the percentage of composition is as under :-
"Sample is a cut-piece made of Asbestos Sheet coated on one side with PVC Synthetic Resin containing pigments, fillersr plasticisers, etc. It is further embossed on same side. Percentage composition on sample is as under :- Asbestos Sheet : 39.1% Inorganic fillers : 4.2% Plasticiser : 22.6% Balance (containing PVC Resin, : 32.2% Stabiliser, organic compound, etc.)
5. Shri T. Gunasekaran, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants submitted that product manufactured by the appellants is mainly composed of asbestos fibre and is coated with plastisol and referring to the test report he submitted that since the proportion of mineral fibres is 39.1% which constitutes the major item in the manufacturing of floor coverings, it is appropriately classifiable under Item 22F(4) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. He said that carpets may be a floor coverings but all floor coverings are not carpets. Item in question is not known as carpet in the Trade and the affidavits filed by the reputed dealers substantiate that this is not known as Carpets. It was also argued by him that certain floor coverings of Carpet will figure under 22G and not all floor coverings like the item in question. He said that even if it is not Carpet still it cannot be classifiable under Chapter 22 but classifiable as a residuary item under 68 of the Tariff.
6. Shri Jain, learned SDR for the Revenue while reiterating the findings given by the Collector (Appeals) submitted that since item is described as 'Flooring' indicating end-use as floor covering, it is classifiable under Tariff Item 22G. Further carpeting is not restricted to only textile products. To fall under 22F it must contain mineral fibre more than 50% in the composition and referring to the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Hind Syntex Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 35 (MR), he submitted that expressing 'predominance in weight' can have two different meanings. One is that the fibre should be the major constituent of the fabric, that is, it should comprise more than 50 per cent of the weight of the fabric and other is that it should be the single largest constituent of the fabric. The normal and logic approach in deciding such a question would be to consider whether a particular fibre constitutes the bulk of the fabric not whether it happens to be the single largest constituent irrespective its quantum.
7. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. Item 22F(4) refers to other manufactures in which mineral fibres or yarn or both predominate or predominate in weight. Decision referred to above by the Departmental Representative dealt with the issue predominates in weight with regard to Tariff Item 68(iii). Since 22F not only refers to predominates in weight but also term 'predominate' and since these two terms have not been defined in Tariff entries we are not convinced with the argument advanced by the Departmental Representative that mineral fibres should be more than 50% by weight in the composition. There is some force in the argument advanced by the appellants' counsel that since item in question consists of more than two items 50% is not criterion but the single largest of the total contents is to be taken into consideration in determining the classification. Since percentage of mineral fibres is 39.1% which constituent major item in the manufacture of floorings and 22-F excludes only asbestos cement products, we are of the view that item in question is more appropriately classifiable under 22F(4) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by the appellants. In the view, we have taken, we set aside the impugned order and, accordingly, the appeal is allowed.