TMI Blog1993 (9) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Tariff and set aside the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). Not being satisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal the respondents filed writ petition before the Madras High Court and the Honorable High Court by its order on the Writ Petition No. 7211 of 1984, dated 26-6-1992 has quashed order of the Tribunal and directed the Tribunal to give sufficient opportunity to the respondents to meet two grounds. The first ground was that the examiner s report as it was presented originally before the authorities below did not contain the note but the very note was relied upon by the Tribunal without giving an opportunity to the party to contest the same. The second ground was that the Tribunal relied upon the order passed in the case of M/s. Bharat Rubber Regenerating Co. Ltd., without giving an opportunity to the party to distinguish their case from that of M/s. Bharat Rubber Regenerating Ltd., 1984 (18) E.L.T. 85 (Tribunal). 2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran learned Advocate arguing on behalf of the party submitted that the process of manufacture of the product in question as stated in the statements of facts given by the department is not in disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication No. 71 of 1968 based upon the clarification issued by the Board as per C.B.E. C. F. No. 27/8/C/2, dated 12-7-1978. The findings given by the Tribunal with reference to the product in para 6 of the order in the case of M/s. Bharat Rubber Regenerating Co. is not similar to the manufacturing process of the product in this case since it is not a raw material but a rubber product as mentioned in chemical examiner s report dated 15-6-1982 in view of its composition. He said that the Tribunal has distinguished the case of Bharat Rubber Regenerating Co., in the case of Rubber Reclaimed Co. of India Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 52 (Tribunal) and held that reclaimed rubber sheets specifically covered by Item 16A(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and so not classifiable under Item 68. Since process of the product is identical as in the case of Rubber Reclaimed Co., same is to be classified under 16A as it was held in that case. 3. Smt. J.M.S. Sundaram learned SDR for the revenue while countering the arguments submitted, it was clearly held in the case of M/s. Bharat Rubber Regenerating Co. Ltd., that reclaimed rubber manufactured by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduct resulting from the treatment of vulcanised scrap rubber tyres, tubes and miscellaneous waste rubber articles by the application of heat and chemical agents, whereby a substantial devulcanisation or regeneration of the rubber compound to its original plastic state is effected, thus permitting the product to be processed, compounded and vulcanised. Reclaiming is essentially depolymerization; the combined sulphur is not removed. The product is sold for use as a raw material in the manufacture of rubber goods, with or without admixture with crude rubber or synthetic rubber. The two tariff items 16A and 68 read as under :- 16A. Rubber products, the following, namely; (1) Latex foam sponge. (2) Plates, sheets and strips unhardened, whether vulcanised or not, and whether combined with any textile material or otherwise. (3) Piping and tubing of unhardened vulcanised rubber. (4) Transmission, conveyor or elevator belts or belting, or vulcanised rubber. 68. All other goods not elsewhere, specified,........ . On going through the relevant tariff entry 16A, we find that reclaimed rubber as such is not specified i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the respondents that Bharat Rubber case was distinguished in the latter case Rubber Reclaim Company holding that it was classifiable under 16A of the Central Excise Tariff. It was not rightly distinguished and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in the latter case is without going into the reasoning given by the Tribunal with reference to the findings in the case of Bharat Rubber, as it was rightly pointed out by the DR Without going into the issue of possession of calendering machine or otherwise, it was held in the case of Bharat Rubber that reclaimed rubber in the form of sheets is not a product made out of rubber but only a rubber raw material. But in the latter case this was misconceived and arrived at the conclusion based upon the observation that manufacture of rubber sheets required a calendering machine which Bharat Regenerating Company did not possess but in the latter case that the manufacturing process involved, inter alia passing the material through roller sheeting mills to obtain reclaimed rubber sheets. Concurring with the view taken in the case of Bharat Regenerating Company, we hold that reclaimed rubber in any form is not classifiable under 16A but classi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
