G.P. Agarwal, Member (J)

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals), Madras-I.

2. Shortly put the facts of the case are that, the respondents M/s. Kasturi Sons, Madras, imported a consignment of Rubber Blankets with metal bars attached to the edges vide Bill of Entry No. 33891 dated 29-8-1992 and sought clearance under Chapter Heading 4008.29 read with Customs Notification No. 192/80 at Basic Duty 40% + 45% Auxiliary Duty and Nil C.V. Duty. However, the Assistant Collector (ACC) rejected the said claim of the respondents and classified the subject goods under Heading 40.16 by observing as follows :-

"The subject goods are 'Rubber blankets' with metal brackets attached on both the sides. The issue under dispute is whether these are correctly classifiable under Heading 4008.29 of Customs Tariff or under Heading 40.16 of Central Excise Tariff as articles of rubber. The lower authority's observation that 'chapter Heading 40.08 covers plates, sheets and strips having cross sectional dimension exceeding 5 mm in the length or merely cut to length' is factually incorrect as correctly pointed out by the appellants. The chapter note does not specify any dimensional limitations for goods to be classified under Heading 40.08."

2.1. Against that Order of the Assistant Collector, the respondents filed their appeal before the Collector (Appeals), who vide his impugned Order allowed the claim of the respondents holding that the subject goods be treated as "Rubber Sheets" classifiable under Heading 40.08 of Central Excise Tariff and not under Heading 40.16 as articles of rubber. Hence the present appeal by the Revenue. Along with the appeal, the appellant has also filed an application for suspending the operation of the impugned Order-in-Appeal, but when this application was taken up for hearing, the learned JDR, Shri Somesh Arora, submitted that since the issue involved in the present case is a covered one, he would not be pressing the Stay Application if the appeal itself is taken up for hearing on merits. Shri Vishwanath, learned counsel, also submitted accordingly. Hence the Bench proceeded to hear the appeal itself on merits.

3. Arguing on behalf of the appellants, Shri Somesh Arora, learned JDR, submitted that, admittedly, the respondents imported metal bars with rubber blankets attached to the edges. Therefore, the Collector (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the metal strips so fixed at the two edges of the rubber sheets would mean that the rubber sheets have been subjected to a process which could be treated as further work having been carried out on the rubber sheets and, therefore, according to him, the subject goods were correctly classifiable under Heading 40.16. To lend support to the arguments, he also referred to Note 9 to Chapter 40 of CET and also cited the case of M/s. Kerala Books and Publication Society v. Collector of Customs, 1992 (61) E.L.T. 686. In reply, while supporting the impugned Order, Shri Vishwanath, learned counsel, cited the case of Susha Electronics Industries v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, 1989 (39) E.L.T. 585, wherein it was held that, as per the definition given in the policy, for the purpose of Import Policy, consumer goods will mean consumer goods which can directly satisfy human needs without further processing. It would also include consumer goods durables and also the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Castrol Ltd., 1991 (56) E.L.T. 485. He also drew our attention to page 256 of G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation (1988 Ed.), wherein the Rule of Noscitur A Sociis has been explained.

4. We have considered the submissions. From the Order-in-Appeal, we find that on examination of the imported goods it was found to contain rubber blankets with metal bars attached to the edges. While classifying these goods under Heading 40.16, the Assistant Collector has observed as follows

"The goods were examin