SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S.C. Agrawal and S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.

CA 167 of 1997. D/d. 1.4.1998.

Formica India Division Ltd. - Appellant

Versus

Collector of Central Excise - Respondent

Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, Entry 68 or 22-F(4) - Articles/Commodities - Pre-preg 'G' - Such article was manufactured after appellant purchased glass fabric from the market and treated the same with resin - Held - Under such circumstances Pre-preg 'G' fell under Item 68 and not under Item 22-F (4).

[Para 2]

Cases Referred :-

Mahindra Engineering & Chemical Products Ltd. v. Union of India.

ORDER

S.C. Agrawal, J. - The appellant was manufacturing laminates and for that purpose, it purchased duty-paid glass fabrics from various manufacturers. The appellant classified the product namely, Pre-preg 'G', as chargeable to excise duty under Tariff Item 68 in the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff under the Schedule to the Central Excise Act. The said classification was initially approved by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise but subsequently a show-cause notice was issued whereby it was proposed to classify the treated glass fabric under Tariff Item 22-F. The appellant submitted its reply to the said show-cause notice but the Assistant Collector passed an order classifying the product under Tariff Item 22-F(4). The appeal filed by the appellant against the said order of the Assistant Collector was allowed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) who held that the glass fabrics alone could be classified under Tariff Item 22-F(4) and treated glass fabric could not be classified under the said item. On further appeal the Central Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 21-6-1996, has reversed the said order of the Collector (Appeals) and has held that the treated glass fabric produced by the appellant was classifiable under Tariff Item 22-F(4). Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the Tribunal, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

2. Shri Laxmikumaran, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has invited our attention to the decision of this Court in Mahindra Engineering & Chemical Products Ltd. v. Union of India, wherein this Court, while dealing with sub-item (4) of Item 22-F of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff, has held that the said item only covers glass fabrics manufactured out of the fabric/yarn and would not cover any product of the fabric. In view of the said decision, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal cannot be upheld because here the appellant was purchasing glass fabric from the market and by treating the same with resin, the product Pre-preg 'G' was being manufactured. The appeal is, therefore, allowed accordingly, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and the judgment of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) is restored.

3. No order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.