M/S Indcon
Structurals (P) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai [2006] Insc 210
(17 April 2006)
Ashok
Bhan & Lokeshwar Singh Panta Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.
This
Statutory Appeal is filed by M/s Indcon Structurals (P) Limited under Section
35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act") against the Final Order No. 1557/2000 dated 14th November, 2000 of
the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short "the
CEGAT"), Chennai, in appeal No. E/1554/94-D- MD, setting aside the Order
dated 16th May, 1994 recorded by the Collector of
Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.
The
appellant-Company is engaged in manufacture of flooring cement tiles using
cement, sand, blue metal and gravel along with pigment. These are in the form
of tiles used for constructing the floor itself or the wall, as the case may
be.
The
appellant-Company filed classification list claiming the benefit of
Notification No. 59/90-CE on the ground that the cement tiles in question are
not floor coverings in rolls or in the form of tiles as per the description
against serial No. 4 of sub-heading 6807.00 of the Table annexed with the
Notification. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Range- IXA, Madras, IX
Division, issued a show-cause notice dated 6th November, 1992 to the
appellant-Company (hereinafter referred to as the "assessee-Company")
directing it to pay the excise duty on the cement tiles as the said goods are
not eligible to avail the benefit of the Exemption Notification No.59/90-CE.
The assessee-Company in its reply submitted that cement tiles manufactured by
them are used to construct the floor itself and it is not floor coverings in
terms of the description of the goods under sub-heading 6807.00. The Assistant
Collector of Central Excise, Madras, IX Division the adjudicating authority,
on careful examination of the records and the submissions made before it by
both the parties and after taking into consideration the Section Notes/Chapter
Notes of Chapters 39, 57, 59 and 68, felt it necessary to conduct an
on-the-spot study since the issue for adjudication was in regard to the product
classification. The adjudicating authority accordingly visited the factory
premises of the assessee-Company and studied the manufacturing process of cement
tiles. Finally, the adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that cement
tiles manufactured by the assessee- Company are covered under sub-heading
6807.00 as such the benefit of exemption Notification No. 59/90 dated 20th March, 1994 is available to the Company.
The
Revenue preferred an appeal against the said order of the adjudicating
authority before the Collector (Appeals).
The
First Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the adjudicating authority
holding that the cement tiles manufactured by the assessee-Company are not
floor coverings and the benefit of the Notification has been rightly extended
to the Company.
Being
aggrieved against the order of the appellate authority, the Revenue filed an
appeal before the CEGAT. The Member (Technical) of the CEGAT has found no
infirmity or perversity in the said order and dismissed the appeal of the
Revenue, but the second Member (Judicial) has recorded separate order differing
with the order of Member (Technical) and set aside the order of the appellate
authority.
The
matter came to be referred to the third Member for solving the difference of
opinion between the Members of the Bench. The third Member (Technical) agreed
with the views expressed by Member (Judicial) and accordingly the appeal filed
by the Revenue was accepted and the benefit of concession of the excise duty
was denied to the assessee- Company. Hence, the assessee-Company has filed this
appeal before this Court challenging the correctness and validity of the order
of the CEGAT.
We have
heard the learned counsel for the parties on either side. Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran,
the learned counsel for the assessee-Company, submitted that the assessee-Company
is the manufacturer of the cement tiles, which are used as flooring in the form
of floor itself and these are not floor coverings as projected by the Revenue.
Per
contra, Mr. B. Dutta, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on
behalf of the Revenue, submitted that it is not in dispute that the product of
the assessee is in the form of tiles, but these tiles are used for floor
coverings and as such the majority members of the CEGAT have rightly denied the
benefit of exemption to the assessee-Company.
Thus,
the core question involved in the present appeal is whether the cement tiles,
manufactured by the assessee- Company, are used for floor coverings in the form
of tiles for the purpose of assessment of the rate of excise duty under
Notification No. 59/90 or the goods are exempted from payment of such duty as
claimed by the assessee-Company.
Notification
No. 59/90-CE dated 20th March, 1990 has been issued by the Central Government
in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), exempting certain goods specified
in column (3) of the Table annexed thereto and under Sub-heading No. (3) of the
Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) specified in column
(2) of the said Table, from so much of that portion of the duty of excise leviable
thereon which is specified in the said Schedule as is in excess of the amount
calculated at the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) of
the said Table. Table of the Notification, relevant for the purpose of deciding
the present appeal, reads as under:- Table Sl. No.
Sub
Heading No.
Description
of gods Rate of Duty
-
XXX XXXX XXX
-
XXX XXXX XXX
-
XXX XXXX XXX
-
6807.00
All
goods excluding the following, namely:-
i.
Floor coverings
in rolls or in the form of tiles
ii.
XXXX 15% ad valorem
It is by now well-settled that the words and expressions in taxing Statutes,
unless defined in the Statute itself, have to be construed in the sense in
which the persons dealing with them understand, i.e., as per the trade
understanding, commercial and technical practice and usage. We find that the
expressions "floor coverings in rolls or in the form of tiles" are
not defined in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 or in the Central Excise
Tariff Act or in the Exemption Notification No. 59/90, but it has acquired a
definite trade and business understanding. The record shows that the
adjudicating authority in its order has recorded categorical finding that in
support of the claim, the assessee-Company has produced on record certificates
of the well-known Architects or Engineers and Town Planners, Interior Design
Engineers and Consultants and users to the effect that the cement tiles
manufactured by the assessee-Company are totally different from floor
coverings. Some samples pertaining to floor coverings and other products,
including cement tiles, were produced by the assessee-Company as material
evidence for comparative analysis before the adjudicating authority at the time
of inspection of the factory premises. The adjudicating authority on such
inspection had studied the process of manufacture of cement tiles and found
that cement, sand, blue metal, gravel were mixed in pre-determined proposition
along with pigments and then the mixture was poured into moulds, compacted and
allowed to set automatically through vibration table. The adjudicating
authority further noticed that the cement tiles were demoulded, cured, surface
treated and are marketed in the brand name of Eurocon tiles. These tiles are
capable of using for wall application of both external/internal wall tiling,
which form an integral part of the wall on which they are cemented. The
adjudicating authority also studied the product in question with reference to
its characteristics, temperature resistance, structural properties and
durability. The authority has also perused Section Notes/ Chapter Notes of
Chapters 39, 57, 59 and 68 dealing with the goods floor coverings and flooring
materials. On going through the expressions given for the products, floor
coverings/wall coverings under Chapter Headings 39, 57 and 59, which are made
out of plastics, coir/textiles, the adjudicating authority has observed that
floor coverings have got a distinct identity from the floor materials as the
floor covering materials are totally different products which are commonly used
as an additional coverage to an existing floor/wall, only for the purpose of
beautification and decoration. The authority also observed that floor coverings
are quite replaceable in nature since they are mechanically placed on the floor
and could be reusable also, whereas the tiles such as mosaic/granite/cement
tiles which are basically embedded to the floor is normally on lifetime basis
and further that such tiles once laid on the floor are almost impossible to
remove without breaking or causing damage to the floor itself. The major
differences that exist between the floor materials and floor covering materials
along with specifications maintained by ISI No. 1237/1980 for cement tiles and
ISI No. 11206/1984 and ISI No. 809/92 for other floor covering materials would
go to show that basically the specifications so maintained by ISI for cement
tiles and for other floor covering materials are not akin in nature. On close
examination of the entire material on record, the adjudicating authority has
come to the definite conclusion that the cement tiles manufactured by the assessee-company
are in no way akin to floor covering materials and these are covered within the
nomenclature of 'floor tiles' and, therefore, the assessee-Company is entitled
to the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 59/90.
The
appellate authority as noticed earlier has confirmed the order of the
adjudicating authority and held that the cement tiles in question are not
`floor coverings' and the benefit of the notification has been rightly extended
to the assessee-Company. The Member (Technical) of the CEGAT has also come to
the conclusion that the cement tiles in question are flooring materials and
become constituent part of the floor or wall or stairways. These tiles cannot
be termed as `floor coverings'. In support of his findings, the Member
(Technical) has taken into consideration notes of the IS specifications and
various certificates issued by the qualified Architects, Engineers, Valuers and
Interior-Designers dealing in the said goods. The other two Members of the
CEGAT, in our view, have failed to consider the nomenclature of the words and
expressions "floor coverings in rolls or in the form of tiles" as
used under sub-headings 6807.00 in the description of goods specified in Table annexed
with the Exemption Notification. The majority Members in recording different
view than the one taken by the adjudicating authority, the first appellate
authority and the Member (Technical), CEGAT, have only observed that no
restricted meaning could be given to the expression "floor coverings"
as to include only those items which could be just separate or placed on the
floor and to put the items that are affixed to the floor to cover the same out
of its purview. The second Member (Technical) in his separate order, supporting
the order of the Member (Judicial), has mainly relied upon an earlier decision
in Niraj Cement Structurals v. Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai [1998 (101)
E.L.T. 284 (Tribunal)]. We have gone through the said decision of the Tribunal
but, in our considered view, the same is of no assistance or help to the
Revenue in peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case,
the assessee was manufacturer of tiles covered by the same Notification
No.59/90-CE and description of the goods were also under the same sub-heading.
In that case the product manufactured by the Company was used as `floor
coverings' inasmuch as the tiles were placed on the floor covering the cable
running underneath the floor. Thus, the findings of the Tribunal in the Niraj
Cement case (supra) cannot be uniformly applied to the products in question
manufactured by the assessee-Company.
In the
facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, the noted contentions of the
learned Additional Solicitor General do not merit acceptance. The objection of
the Revenue that the cement tiles manufactured by the assessee-Company are
covered under the expression "floor coverings in rolls or in the form of
tiles" is misconceived.
We,
therefore, hold that as per the trade understanding and usages, cement tiles,
the subject-matter of the present case, is a form of floor itself and,
therefore, entitled to the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 59/1990.
Accordingly,
we allow this appeal and set aside the orders of the majority Members of the
CEGAT. Consequently, the order of the Member (T) maintaining the order of
appellate authority which, in turn, has confirmed the order of the adjudicating
authority are all held as reasonable and sustainable. The parties are left to
bear their own costs.
Back