Page 86 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

476 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

manufacturer classified textile floor covering of jute as product under sub-
heading 5703.20 in the relevant years. The assessee in this case had been procur-
ing raw-materials from different manufacturers and out of such materials, they
had been producing car mattings and other mattings as well, such as bath mats,
telephone mats, floor foot mats etc. with the aid of power operated machines.
The process of manufacture involved cutting as per standards, overlocking and
stitching etc. Following the case of Sterling India (supra), it was held that floor
mats of cars could be classifiable under Heading No. 8708. But again, like in the
case of Sterling India (supra), the Tribunal has not given any reasoning for such
classification in this decision. The Tribunal in these appeals, following the case of
Sterling India (supra) found that the subject-goods were classifiable under Chap-
ter 8708.
All these three cases have been decided by the Tribunal, which obviously
has no precedent value for us. We however, discussed these cases only for the
purpose of ascertaining as to whether the revenue authorities had been treating
car mats as a subject head under sub-heading 8708, on proper analysis of com-
peting claim of the assessees to include them in sub-heading 5703. We do not
find so from these decisions of the Tribunal.
20. There are authorities in which it has been held that the popular
meaning among consumers would be a major factor for interpretation of dispute
relating to classification. This principle has been laid down in the cases of Plasmac
Machine Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1991
Supp.(1) SCC 57 = 1991 (51) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.)] and Dabur India Ltd. v. Commissioner
of Central Excise, Jamshedpur [(2005) 4 SCC 9 = 2005 (182) E.L.T. 290 (S.C.)]. In the
case of Dabur India Ltd. (supra), it has been held : -
“9. From the abovementioned authorities, it is clear that in classifying a
product the scientific and technical meaning is not to be resorted to. The
product must be classifiable according to the popular meaning attached to
it by those using the product. As stated above, in this case the appellants
have shown that all the ingredients in the product are those which are men-
tioned in Ayurvedic textbooks. This by itself may not be sufficient but the
appellants have shown that they have a Drug Controller’s licence for the
product and they have also produced evidence by way of prescriptions of
Ayurvedic Doctors, who have prescribed these for treatment of rickets. As
against this, the Revenue has not made any effort and not produced any ev-
idence that in common parlance the product is not understood as a medic-
ament.”
21. In the case of A.P. State Electricity Board v. Collector of Central Excise,
Hyderabad [(1994) 2 SCC 428 = 1994 (70) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)], the marketability test has
been applied, which is, in a way, a corollary to the “popular meaning” test. In
this case it has been held : -
“10. It would be evident from the facts and ratio of the above decisions
that the goods in each case were found to be not marketable. Whether it is
refined oil (non-deodorised) concerned in Delhi Cloth and General Mills or
kiln gas in South Bihar Sugar Mills or aluminium cans with rough uneven
surface in Union Carbide or PVC films in Bhor Industries or hydrolysate in
Ambalal Sarabhai the finding in each case on the basis of the material before
the Court was that the articles in question were not marketable and were not
known to the market as such. The ‘marketability’ is thus essentially a ques-
tion of fact to be decided on the facts of each case. There can be no
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  86