S. Grover, Vice- President

1. M/s International Conveyors Limited, a Public Limited Company, in short mentioned as the Company, filed a Revision Application (R.A.) before the Additional Secretary, Government of India, Department of Revenue on 10th of April 1981 against the Order No. V-2(68)/688/79/8620 dated 23rd of October 1980 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay. The related Order of Adjudication was of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Aurangabad dated 21st/24th of March 1979. The said R.A. came to be transferred to the Tribunal under Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter referred as the Act, as an Appeal, and is being accordingly disposed of as such.

2. 1978 for their product which they described as under :

P.V.C. Fire Resistant Anti-Static Solid Woven Coal Conveyor Belting/P.V.C. Food Conveyor Belting.

3. While submitting the AL-4, the Company claimed that its products fell under Tariff Item 68 of the C.E.T.

4. On 24th October 1978, the Company was required to explain the manufacturing process and raw material to be used. Necessarily, reply was filed on 19th November 1978.

5. A show cause notice was issued on 12th of January 1979 calling upon the Company as to why its product should not be licensed under Tariff Item No. 19. The Company resisted the show cause notice and made several-fold submissions which are summarised as below :-

(i) That its products were not unknown to tariff entries ;

(ii) The mode of manufacture or the ingredients thereof could not be solely determinative of the exigibility to levy of duty on a given product;

(iii) The contents of a tariff entry must be understood in its trade or market sense ;

(iv) The Explanation II to Tariff Item No. 19 on which reliance was sought to be placed by the Excise Authorities to reject the Company's classification had no relevance or application as it related to products which could be termed as fabrics ;

(v) The Notification No. 273/77-C.E., dated 11th of August 1977 could not play any role to bring the Company's products in the ambit of Tariff Item No. 19 of C.E.T.

6. The Superintendent, Central Excise, however, rejected all the contentions and held that the manufacturing process of the base belting was not different from the fabrics.

7. Frankly speaking, we have not been able to appreciate the reasoning of his Order that what was important was not the entire manufacturing process but the base process. Further, by holding that cotton was predominating in weight, the product (Conveyor Belting) which was used entirely for coal mining operation by the Coal India Limited was held to be excisable under Tariff Item No. 19 (III). At this stage, it may be expedient to bring in focus the Tariff Item No. 19 with its Explanations etc., as follows :-

8. The Company filed an appeal before Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay and in terms stated in Para 3(e) that alongwith the application for L-4 Licence, it had enclosed detailed plans indicating that its products which were PVC Conveyor Belting would be excisable under Tariff Entry 68. It was stated that rubber belts would be covered under 16A of the C.E.T.

9. The Company also stated in their Appeal Memo to the Appellate Collector, a copy of which has been submitted to us, that the basis of the Adjudication Order, of the Superintendent, was that since in the making of PVC Conveyor Belting the Company would be consuming cotton fabrics, it tantamounted to process akin to textile industry. The assessee rebutted the said basis by pleading that in construing a tariff item one has to look at the trade and commercial sense of the entry. That conveyor belting is a product which is, and has always been, known to the market and that is how its specific mention comes in Entry No. 16A. At this stage, Entry 16A may also be brought in focus as follows : -

10. The submissions, however, did not find favour with the Appellate Collector and not only he rejected the Appeal but held t