Page 87 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III v. UNI PRODUCTS INDIA LTD. 477

generalisation. The fact that the goods are not in fact marketed is of no rele-
vance. So long as the goods are marketable, they are goods for the purposes
of Section 3. It is also not necessary that the goods in question should be
generally available in the market. Even if the goods are available from only
one source or from a specified market, it makes no difference so long as
they are available for purchasers. Now, in the appeals before us, the fact
that in Kerala these poles are manufactured by independent contractors
who sell them to Kerala State Electricity Board itself shows that such poles
do have a market. Even if there is only one purchaser of these articles, it
must still be said that there is a market for these articles. The marketability
of articles does not depend upon the number of purchasers nor is the mar-
ket confined to the territorial limits of this country. The appellant’s own
case before the excise authorities and the CEGAT was that these poles are
manufactured by independent contractors from whom it purchased them.
This plea itself — though not pressed before us — is adequate to demolish
the case of the appellant. In our opinion, therefore, the conclusion arrived at
by the Tribunal is unobjectionable.”
22. Emphasis on technical meaning has been highlighted in the case of
Commissioner of Central Excise v. Wockhardt Life Sciences Limited [(2012) 5 SCC 585
= 2012 (277) E.L.T. 299 (S.C.)] for resolving classification related disputes of
goods. In this case, it has been held that a commodity cannot be classified in a
residuary entry if there is a specific entry, even if the specific entry requires the
product to be understood in a technical sense.
23. “The common parlance test”, “marketability test”, “popular mean-
ing test” are all tools for interpretation to arrive at a decision on proper classifica-
tion of a tariff entry. These tests, however, would be required to be applied if a
particular tariff entry is capable of being classified in more than one heads. So far
as subject-dispute is concerned, we have already referred to Chapter Note 1 of
Chapter 57. This note stipulates that carpets and other floor coverings would
mean floor coverings in which textile materials serve as the exposed surface of
the Article when in use. This feature of the car mats has not really been rejected
by the revenue authorities as untrue in the order of the Commissioner, before
whom assertion to that effect was made by the respondent.
24. The core issue in these appeals is as to whether car mats come un-
der Chapter-Heading 57.03 or not. In the second appeal, the numerical represen-
tation of the product, as claimed by the assessee, was different but that difference
is not of much significance. Revenue’s case is that the goods are manufactured in
such a way that these can be used as accessories of cars. The Tribunal found that
though in common parlance the products involved may not be considered as
carpets, in view of the wordings of the chapter, section notes, chapter notes and
explanatory notes, the goods were classifiable under chapter Heading 5703.90.90.
25. We do not find any error in such reasoning. Chapter 87 of the Cen-
tral Excise Tariff of India does not contain car mats as an independent Tariff
Entry. We have reproduced earlier the various parts and accessories listed
against Tariff Entry 8708. All of them are mechanical components, and revenue
want car mats to be included under the residuary sub-head “other” in the same
list. The HSN Explanatory Notes dealing with interpretation of the rules specifi-
cally exclude “tufted textile carpets, identifiable for use in motor cars” from 87.08
and place them under Heading 57.03. Revenue’s argument is that the Explanato-
ry Notes have persuasive value only. But the level or quality of such persuasive
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  87