1987 (7) TMI 447 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under Item 22-A or Item 22-G of the Tariff Schedule.

Analysis:
The case involved the classification of flocked hessian fabric manufactured by a company under the Tariff Schedule. The dispute arose when the Department classified the product under Item 22-G, while the company contended that it should be classified under Item 22-A. The Appellate Collector initially classified the product under Item 22-A but left an ambiguity in the final classification. The Department argued for the classification under Item 22-G, emphasizing that the product did not qualify as a floor covering under Item 22-G due to its intended use in automobiles as car mats. The Department failed to provide evidence supporting the assertion that the product could be used as a floor covering. The Appellate Tribunal concurred with the company's argument that the product did not qualify as a floor covering under Item 22-G, thus rejecting the Department's contention that the product should be reclassified under Item 22-G.

The Department further argued that even if the product did not qualify as a carpet, it should be classified as carpeting under Item 22-G since it was manufactured in running lengths. However, the Tribunal found that the product did not exhibit the characteristics of a floor covering or carpeting intended for use as such. The Tribunal highlighted the absence of evidence supporting the Department's claim that the product could be used as a normal carpet or floor covering. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Department's argument for reclassification under Item 22-G based on the product being considered as carpeting.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Appellate Collector, confirming the classification of the product under Item 22-A of the Tariff Schedule. The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal, emphasizing that the product did not meet the criteria for classification under Item 22-G as a floor covering, carpet, or carpeting. The judgment clarified the classification of the product and resolved the dispute regarding its appropriate categorization under the Tariff Schedule.