Page 85 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III v. UNI PRODUCTS INDIA LTD. 475

3. It is, therefore, clarified that appropriate Central Excise Duty is
payable on floor coverings in the form of non-woven material in rolls when
cleared from the factory, as well as, on the car mattings subsequently man-
ufactured out of duty paid floor coverings in the form of non-woven mate-
rial in rolls.
4. The Board’s earlier <<15391$Circular No. 5/Floor Cover-
ings/87>> (F. No. 57/1/87-CX.1), dated 23-6-1987 may be treated as with-
drawn and assessments may be finalized in terms of the revised instruc-
tions.”
This circular deals with a situation in which non-woven materials in roll
form which were excisable goods, emerged as a different product when the for-
mer is transformed as car matting upon application of certain process. For this
reason, it was stipulated, that duty would be leviable at two stages. But in these
two appeals, we are to determine as to whether car mattings came within the
aforesaid tariff under Chapter 57. These appeals do not raise the question as to
whether car mattings themselves would be subjected to excise duty or not. The
question here is under which tariff-head the duty should be paid. The aforesaid
circular does not assist the revenue in the subject appeals.
18. In the three Tribunal decisions cited on behalf of revenue authori-
ties, such car mattings were treated as parts and accessories of motor cars. The
first case cited is that of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II v. Sterling India [2000
(115) E.L.T. 807]. This was a decision of CEGAT, New Delhi. Before the Tribunal
in this case, the assessee went unrepresented. The goods involved were canvas
canopy, floor mattings and seat covers. The Tribunal upheld the Collector’s order
that the said articles were not classifiable as floor coverings under sub-heading
No. 5702.90 of the Tariff and those were to be classified under Heading No.
8708.00. The order of the Tribunal does not contain any analysis or reasoning and
reads : -
“3. We have gone through the facts on record. We find that both the Asstt.
Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, who had adjudicated the matter and
the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, had held that the goods
in dispute were not the carpets and floor mattings but were accessories of
motor vehicles. The goods in dispute are canvas canopy, floor matting and
seat covers for motor vehicles. Floor matting was made from jute coated
with PVC. Other items also were not used as floor coverings. The Collector
of Central Excise (Appeals) has also referred to the HSN Explanatory Notes
and the relevant Chapter Notes to arrive at his conclusion that the type of
the goods involved in these proceedings were not to be classifiable as floor
coverings.”
19. The next case is that of Collector of Central Excise v. Swaraj Mazda
[1993 (68) E.L.T. 258]. This is also a decision of CEGAT. This case relates to avail-
ability of Modvat credit on floor mats for motor vehicles. In this case floor mats
had been cleared on payment of duty under sub-heading No. 8708, which cov-
ered parts and accessories of motor vehicles of Headings 87.01 to 87.05. Applica-
bility of that entry was not in lis in that appeal. The Tribunal found that floor
mats could be an item entering into the stream of completion of the manufac-
tured product rendering it fit for marketing. On that ground input credit under
the Modvat provisions was allowed. The third case, which was cited on behalf of
the revenue was that of Jyoti Carpet Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Jaipur-I [2001 (132) E.L.T. 458] decided by the CEGAT. This was a case where the
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  85