Page 133 - GSTL_14th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 2

2020 ] IN RE : PRAYAGRAJ DYEING & PRINTING MILLS PVT. LTD. 235
guidelines to interpret a notification. The submission is unac-
ceptable.
50. In my view, it is immaterial whether the words in
question are used in the Act or in the notification issued under
the Act. The notification being issued in exercise of statutory
power under the Act forms part of it is to be noted that in Parle’s
case (supra) the Supreme Court said :
”It is well settled that when two views of a notifi-
cation are possible, it should be construed in favour
of the subject as notification is part of a fiscal en-
actment.” (emphasis supplied).
51. Furthermore, the predominant principle of classifica-
tion has been followed by the Supreme Court even when con-
struing an exemption notification under the Central Excises and
Salt Act, 1944.”
(II) In case of Thermodors Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Pune - 2016 (334) E.L.T. 174 (Tri. - Mumbai) :
“6. We find that the product i.e. Missile containers are
manufactured out of two main ingredient i.e. Plastic and Glass
Fiber. Plastic content in the product is to the extent of 39% and
Glass Fiber is 33%. The product Missile Container is a container
which does not have a single specific entry in the tariff act Any
container manufactured is liable to be classified depending upon
the raw material used such as if container is manufactured pre-
dominantly made of plastic/Glass/Metal/Aluminum/copper/
steel, the classification of the container will be based on the ma-
terial used in the container. In case of this type of product if the
goods is manufactured with various material then being compo-
site product the classification shall be based on the predominant
ingredient contained in the product. In the present case the pre-
dominant input is plastic as compared to Glass fiber therefore
the product Missile Container merit classification under Chapter
39 and not under Chapter 70. The submission of the appellant
that classification should be based on the end use is not correct
for the reason that there is no specific tariff entry for missile con-
tainer in the Central Excise Tariff Act. The very same issue has
been decided by the Larger Bench and upheld by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Kemrock Industries & Exports Ltd. v.
CCE [2007 (210) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.)]. In the said judgment the
product in question was Fiber Glass Reinforced Plastic Articles,
it was held that the Rule 3(b) of Rules for Interpretation of Tariff
requires that composite goods, mixtures and goods put up in
sets to be classified on the basis of materiel or component which
gives the product its essential character. Following the said
judgment, in the present case also the plastic being predominant
in the product, Missile Container, it merits classification under
Chapter 39, in view of above discussion and settled legal posi-
tion of law, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)
is just and proper which needs no interference we, therefore,
uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.”
GST LAW TIMES  14th May 2020  133