Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Ideal Sheet Metal Stampings And ... vs Collr. Of C. Ex. on 3 July, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1989(43)ELT490(TRI-DEL)
ORDER V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J)
1. The appellants M/s. Ideal Sheet Metal Stampings and Pressings (P) Ltd. filed a refund claim on the ground that duty had been paid under T.I. 68 CET but that the product (Ball Bearing Bobbin Holders) was properly classifiable under Tariff item 15A(2) CET. This refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector under his order dated 23-7-1981. The appeal against the same was dismissed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) under his order dated 4-11-1982. It is against the said order that this appeal has been preferred.
2. On the appeal being taken up Shri Sachar for the Deptt. pointed out that there was a delay in the presentation of the appeal. We found that there is a delay of 3 days. Shri S J. Vyas, Chartered Accountant representing the appellants requested that he may be permitted to make an oral request for condonation of delay. After hearing both sides we had ordered the delay to be condoned. Thereafter arguments on merits were heard. The product in issue is Ball bearing bobbin holder. The appellants claimed that the same is known as plastic ball bearing bobbin holder. They had filed their classification list for approval under T.I. 68 and, on such approval, had been paying duty under the said item. Shri Sachar submitted that in the absence of any appeal against the said order on the classification list the refund claim was not maintainable. In view of the view that we are taking on the other merits in the appeal we do not think that it is necessary to go into this issue.
3. It is admitted that the product is not wholly made of plastics but that, by weight, 28% consists of plastics and the balance non-plastics. The contention for the appellants is that in order to qualify for classification under item 15A(2) CET the product need not be made wholly of plastics. In support of this contention their representative relies on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in 1981 ELT 653 and also certain tariff advices such as tariff advice No. 16/80 dated 24-4-80 published in Cencus June, 1980 page 103-B and Poona Collectorate Trade Notice No. 115/80 published in Cencus September, 1980 page 161B. Under the First...of the said advices plastic cabinets for tape recorders etc. were mentioned to be classifiable under item 15A(2) though they had been fitted with some metallic contents. The Central Board of Excise & Customs tariff advice No. 47/82 clarified that plastic Ball Pens would be classifiable under item 15A(2) though it consisted of certain metal components also.
4. But Shri Sachar drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Geep Flash Light Industries Ltd. (1985 Vol. 22 ELT 3). The Supreme Court had observed therein (in paragraph 3) as follows:
(i) "A mere reference to tariff item No. 15A(2) would show that the articles therein described are plastic material in different shape and form and not articles made from such plastic material."
(ii) "Articles made of plastic mean articles made wholly of commodity commercially known as plastic and not articles made from plastics alongwith other materials."
The Supreme Court in their decision held that the plastic torch in issue in that case was not classifiable under item 15A(2) CET since it was not wholly made of plastic but had non-plastic components also.
5. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court there can be no doubt that the product in issue in this appeal, which consisted of 28% plastic and 72% non-plastic materials, was properly classified under Tariff Item 68 CET and was not classifiable under item 15A(2).
6. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.