Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 2005 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (5) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURTWhether the scrap of rubberised bead wire obtained at the process of manufacture of the rubberized bead wire and the bead wire rings which are removed from defective tyres are to be classified under Tariff Item No. 4004 or 7204.90? Held that:- The product to start with is admittedly a stainless steel wire. In fact at the initial stage when it is cut and waste arises that waste is sold as scrap of stainless steel wire. Thereafter all that happens is that the stainless steel wire gets coated with rubber. Merely because it is coated with rubber does not mean that it loses its characteristic of stainless steel wire. The main item remains a stainless steel wire. When in the process of coating, some waste arises and that waste is sold, that waste would fall under Tariff Item No. 7204.90 by virtue of the fact that it is the waste predominantly of metal. Also this waste arises whilst mechanically working on metal and rubberising it. Thus, Note 6 of Section XV would make this a waste and scrap of metal. Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 40 would have no application at all. Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 40 specifically provides that the waste and scrap must be rubber waste or scrap. The Tribunal has missed the crucial words "rubber waste ...... and scrap". Waste arising from the process of rubberising a stainless steel wire is not a rubber waste or rubber scrap. Thus the decision of the Tribunal cannot be upheld. The Collector (Appeals) had applied the correct principles and had correctly classified the product.
|