TMI Blog1986 (6) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act ) as it stood at the material time. The proceedings, not having been concluded on the eve of the setting up of this Tribunal, were transferred to it in terms of section 35P(2) of the Act to be disposed of as if it were on appeal filed before the Tribunal by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that M/s. I.G.P. Engineers (P) Ltd., Madras (the respondents before us) were engaged in the manufacture of non-automotive gaskets made out of compressed asbestos jointing sheets on which duty had been paid under item No. 22F of the First Schedule ( CET , for brevity s sake) to the Act. During the relevant period, they were manufacturing gaskets with the aid of power in thickness less than 1.5 m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, gaskets cut out of the gasketing sheets) would amount to double taxation. The Assistant Collector, after holding adjudication proceedings, passed an order on 13-3-1981 holding that he was empowered to demand short-levies of duty under Rule 10 though the Assistant Collector might have approved the classification list earlier. He held that, having regard to the catalogue/literature of the manufactures, it was evident that each variety of gaskets had its own recommended applications, temperature range, specific purpose etc. and they were known by distinct names like cylinder head gaskets, oil filter gaskets etc. Jointing material, on the other hand, was known only as sheets. Therefore, there was manufacture resulting in emergence of new a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -11-1981 (referred to at the commencement of this order) calling upon the respondents to show cause why the order-in-appeal passed by the Appellate Collector should not be set aside and the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector should not be restored or such orders as deemed fit should not be passed after considering the submissions made by the respondent. 3. We have heard Smt. D. Saxena, Senior Departmental Representative, for the Appellate Collector and Shri S. Venkataraman, Consultant, for the respondents. 4. At the outset, Shri Venkataraman, learned Consultant for the respondents, submitted that there was no dispute on the aspect of manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act. He conceded that conversio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ures of asbestos fibre or yarn. That is also the rationale for Central Excise Notification No. 136/76 dated 30-3-1976 inserting mineral fibre and yarn and manufactured therefrom in the Schedule of goods eligible for the benefit of Central Excise Rule 56A. 7. Two other decisions were cited before us by Shri V. Ohri, learned Senior D.R. The first one is the Tribunal s Order No. 173-176/86-C dated 25-3-1986 in appeals No. ED/SB/T.A. No. 293/78-C, 388/79-C, 403/79-C and 1114/81-C, the parties to the appeals being M/s. Bakelite Hylam Limited, Hyderabad and the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad. In this order, the article in dispute was glass fabrics impregnated with phenol formaldehyde known as Prepeg C . The contention for revenue w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re us is not analogous. Sheets which were made from asbestos fibre or yarn were charged to duty, and, correctly too, in our opinion, under item No. 22F as manufacture from asbestos fibre or yarn. However, we are not concerned here with classification of the sheets. We are concerned with the classification of gaskets manufactured out of the sheets. In this connection, the words manufactures therefrom occuring in the main heading of item No. 22F(iv) after the words Mineral fibres and yarn, and are significant. We think that the words imply that a manufacture to fall under the said item should be one which is the result of direct manufacture from yarn of fibre and not a manufacture made out of such a manufactured article. If goods like gas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice. Applying this test, the High Court classified the glass fabrics under item No. 22F. In that case, however, mineral fibres or yarn was predominant in the goods. The Bench followed the Gujarat High Court decision but classified the product before them under item No. 68 since they did not pass the predominance test. This decision does not appear to us to be relevant to the facts of the present case. As already noted, glass fabrics are direct manufactures from glass fibre or yarn. There can be no dispute about their classification under item No. 22F. The goods before us are manufactures from manufactures of asbestos fibre or yarn. 9. Shri Venkataraman contended before us that though manufacture was involved in the conversion of g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
