Decided on August 27,1991



HARISH CHANDER,VICE PRESIDENT - (1.) INTEK Tapes Private Limited has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore. Shri G. Sampath, the learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant. He pleaded that the appellant manufactures insulation tapes from polyester film and PVC. He pleaded that the appellant had claimed assessment under Heading 8546.00 and the matter is covered by an earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Chetna Polycoats (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 253 (Tribunal) vide order No. 598/1988 -C dated 11th July, 1988 in appeal No. E/163/88 -C. He further pleaded that the revenue being not satisfied against the order passed by the Tribunal had gone in appeal to the Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had upheld the findings of the Tribunal vide order dated 13 -2 -1991. He pleaded for the acceptance of the appeal.
(2.) SHRI M. Jayaraman, the learned SDR who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, stated that in view of the decisions cited by the appellant's advocate, he leaves it to the discretion of the Bench as the decisions are against the revenue.
(3.) WE have heard both the sides and have looked into the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no dispute as to the facts. The facts of the present case are in all force similar to Chetna Polycoats (P) Ltd. v. Collector of C. Excise reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 253. Para Nos. 6, 11 and 13 from the said judgment are reproduced below : - "6. It is no doubt true that the schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, is a far more detailed and sophisticated tariff nomenclature than its predecessor schedule. It is also based on the "Harmonised Commodity description and coding system" evolved by the Customs Co -operation Council, Brussels. The new schedule has many in -built aids to the interpretation of its headings and sub -headings. These are the section notes and chapter notes which have got statutory force and rules for the interpretation of the schedule, which also have statutory force. The explanatory notes which are not part of the schedule have no statutory force and are only of persuasive value. These notes, drawn up by experts in the field, are a valuable aid to the understanding of the scope of the headings and the sub -headings but if the interpretation of the entries in the schedule (CET 1985), in the light of the aforesaid legal aids and in the light of case law, point to a conclusion contrary to, or different from that indicated the explanatory notes, the former shall prevail. Therefore, reliance on the explanatory notes has to be tempered with with due regard to the aforesaid considerations. 11. We may now consider Heading 85.46, sub -heading 8546.00, which covers electrical insulators of any material. The lower authorities have relied on the explanatory notes to the Harmonised System in ruling out classification of electrical insulating tapes under this heading. The expression "electrical insulators" occurring in explanation II to Item 15A of the previous tariff schedule came up for consideration before this Tribunal in Bakelite Hylam Ltd., Hyderabad v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad - 1985 (22) E.L.T. 879. The Tribunal went at length into the question and, after considering technical authorities as also Board's understanding as reflected in its tariff advice No. 123/81 dated 23 -11 -1981, came to the conclusion that articles made from materials which have electrically insulating properties (examples mineral fibre, cellulose, glass fibre, certain plastics, glass, porcelain etc.) can be appropriately described as insulators. The goods in that case were rigid plastic laminated sheets and boards having electrical insulating properties. The goods in the present case are electric insulating tapes having adhesive properties. Following the reasoning of this Tribunal in the Bakelite Hylam case, we see no reason why the present goods cannot be described as electrical insulators. 13. In the result, we hold that the subject electrical insulating tapes, covered by classification List No. 774/86 were correctly classifiable under Heading No. 85.46, sub -heading 8546.00. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allow the present appeal." Hon'ble Supreme Court had affirmed the findings of the Tribunal in the decision reported in 1991 (53) E.L.T. A28 Court -room Highlights. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are reproduced below : - "The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah on 13 -2 -1991 dismissed Civil Appeals Nos. 274/91 with 2321/89 filed by Collectors of Central Excise, Bombay and Jaipur respectively against CEGAT Order No. 923/90 -C, dated 5 -6 -1990 (Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Bhor Industries Ltd.) and No. 598/88 -C, dated 11 -7 -1988 (Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Chetna Polycoats (P) Ltd., Bhiwadi, Dist. Alwar). The Appellate Tribunal in its orders in question had held that Electrical Insulating Tapes are classifiable under Heading 85.46 (8546.00) and not under Heading 39.19 (3919) of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985." In view of these observations, we hold that the insulation tapes manufactured from polyester film and PVC fall under Heading 8546.00. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order. ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.