Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The assessee in this case has submitted that there is no significant difference between the old Tariff Item 16A(3) and the present Heading 40.09. It is their plea that the Notification 197/67, dated 29-8-1967 exempted certain goods falling under Item 16A(3) viz. "Piping and Tubing designed for use as component parts of medical or surgical instruments or machinery articles". It is stated that S. Nos. 2 & 3 of this Notification applied to "Piping and Tubing designed for use in laboratories or designed to be, or converted in the factory of its production into component parts of machinery articles respectively". The item in question falls within S. No. 3 of the said notification. After the amendment of the tariff, the items were considered to be falling under sub-heading 4009.99, the tariff rate itself was Nil and as the notification was also in existence, the Government realised about the tariff having Nil rate of duty and therefore, they issued an amending Notification No. 31/90 omitting S. Nos. 2 & 3 in Notification No. 197/67. Therefore, it became clear that the item being unhardened vulcanised rubber continued to be treated as piping and tubing designed to be, or converted in the factory of its production into component parts of machinery articles and that they fell within the said heading noted supra. It is also submitted that after the introduction of tariff Notification No. 197/67 amended by Notification 78/86, dated 10-2-1986, the only amendment being the substitution of the words "falling under sub-item (3) of Item No. 16A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944)" by the words "falling under Chapter 40 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986)". Therefore, it is submitted that even after the coming into force of he new Tariff, pipes and tubes to which processes have been done to render them suitable for use as parts and components, were regarded by the Government of India as Pipings and Tubings. In this context, the assessee is also relying on the Explanatory Notes to the HSN that pipes and tubes cut to length fall under 4009, (page 591). Therefore, it is submitted that a Notification-being a part of statute, relying on the citation "1988 (38) E.L.T. 741". It follows that on the principles of harmonious construction, the Tariff Item must be read alongwith the notification. It is also submitted that this consistent and longstanding legislative history and / or executive interpretation has to be accepted and the same is binding on the department. In this context, the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as rendered in the case of Deshbandhu Gupta & Co. and Ors. v. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. as reported in AIR 1979 S.C. 1049 is relied alongwith Ruling rendered in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. as reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 741 and in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Mahi Traders as reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 266. Therefore, it is submitted that it cannot be contended that by reason of cutting, bevelling (in 2% of cases) which rendered pipings and tubings becoming usable as parts and components of machinery ceased to be pipings and tubings, by virtue of such cutting and bevelling. It is also submitted that Notification No. 197/67, both before and after 1-3-1986, shows a clear legislative intent to exempt from duty pipes and tubes made into parts and components. It is submitted that this clear intent would be wholly frustrated and the Notification rendered largely nugatory if it is held that pipes and tubes which have become known as machinery parts have ceased to be pipes and tubes and therefore, such an interpretation as placed by the ld. Collector (Appeals) is not a correct interpretation. It is also submitted that the ratio of the Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Precision Rubber Ind. is binding on the Tribunal and there is no reason to differ for the same, in the context of there being no material difference in the language of Tariff Item 16A and Heading 40.09. Therefore, they submit that the earlier decision rendered in their own case of the Tribunal in Inarco Ltd. v. CCE Order No. 167/84D, dated 23-3-1984 is no longer pending after the ruling rendered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. It is also submitted that the Tribunal judgment in Inarco Ltd. is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as rendered in the case of Bharat Forge as reported in 1990 (45) E.L.T. 525, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that pipes and tubes cut into size were classified under Tariff Item 26AA and not under Tariff Item 68, even if they were known in the market as a distinct commodity. It is also submitted that the Tribunal judgment in Inarco Ltd. is also inconsistent with the order of the Tribunal rendered in the case of CCE 1989 (39) E.L.T. 681, wherein it has been held that Heading 4009 applied to pipes and tubes cut into smaller sizes and subjected to processes such as skiving and swagging, processes similar to bevelling, (Skiving means "shaving the surface", swagging "to bend or shape". In that view of the matter, they submit that notwithstanding the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Inarco Ltd. (supra). The ruling of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court with reference to the pleadings made by them has to be accepted.

9. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. The question that falls for our consideration is as to whether the products "Aprons and Cots" which have been cut to specific sizes and certain processes carried out to make them as specific components for use in the textile machinery would be excluded from the sub-heading 4009.99 and be included under Chapter Heading 8448.00 as "Parts and accessories suitable for use, solely or principally with the machines of this heading or of Heading No. 84.44, 84.45, 84.46 or 84.47 (for example, spindles and spindle flyers, card, clothing, combs, extruding nipples, shuttles, healds and heald-frames, hosiery needle)". In this regard, the revenue is also relying on the Chapter Note 2 of Section XVI which pertains to the classification of parts. We also notice that Note 1A of Section XVI states that this section does not cover articles of a kind used in a machinery or mechanical or electrical appliances or for other technical uses, unhardened vulcanised rubber (40.16). As per this note, articles of unhardened vulcanised rubber for other technical uses fall within the Heading No. 40.16 and are excluded from Chapter 84. However, the Revenue has given up the classification under the Heading 40.16 and we are not required to dwell upon this note, in view of the revenue contending for classification under Heading 84.48. It is, now well settled that before we go to the later heading as in the present case Chapter 84, it is necessary for us to eliminate Chapter 40 for the purpose of classification. The Rule 3(a) of Rules for Interpretation of the Schedule of the Tariff Act also clearly lays down that when classification under two or more headings are possible in that case, the headings which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to heading providing the more general description. Therefore, it follows that we have to first eliminate the Chapter Heading 40 before going to Chapter 84 in the present case. It has been the case of the assessee that pipes and tubes cut to similar sizes and subjected to processes of bevelling, do not cease to be pipes and tubes. In this context, they have relied on the principle of 'contemporanea expositio' in as much as they have drawn the analogy that the intention of the Government as expressed in the notification which has got statutory effect, should be taken into consideration while interpreting the heading for the purpose of classification. In this regard the rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been cited before us. It has been strongly argued before us that the question has already been settled by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Precision Rubber Ind. and therefore, the question.of classification gets settled thereby and that the change of tariff would not make any difference, in as much as the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has clearly held that merely because the item has been converted into a component from pipes and tubes, it does not cease to be pipes and tubes, by virtue of such cutting and bevelling processes. In order to buttress the arguments, the ld. Sr. Advocate has also relied on the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Bharat Forge & Press Ind. Ltd., Tract Parts Corpn., Parle Exports Pvt. Ltd.

The ratio of ruling rendered in the case of Bharat Forge also has relevance in the present case, as Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that pipe fittings such as elbows, bends, reducers continued to be classified under Tariff Item 26AA(iv) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff as 'Pipes and tubes' and that mere change in length, size and shape is immaterial.

11. The ld. Sr. Advocate has pressed the argument that the tariff entry has to be understood in the way as understood by the Government, legislature and authorities implementing the statutes. In the Notification 197/67, exemption was extended to "Pipes and Tubing" on the understanding that pipes and tubes fall under Chapter 40. This argument has a strong force as Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parle Exports Ltd. has been held that: