ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The classification of two wheeler seats manufactured by M/s. Berrysons India Pvt. Ltd. is the issue to be determined in the above appeals, which are heard together and disposed of by this common order. The appellants in E/223/88-C and E/44/89-C are engaged inter alia in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts viz. seats which are supplied as original equipment to the manufacturers of motor vehicles. The process of manufacture is that the seat of the motor-cycle is fabricated out of steel seat which is then placed in the chamber of the one shot process machine and polyol based on polyurethane along with isocyanate are fed in required quantities. The two chemicals react together and give a foaming effect to the steel seat which is then taken out of the machine and is subjected to upholstery and supplied as original equipment part to the manufacturers of motor-cycles. The claim of the appellants for classification of the Item under TI 68 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff was rejected by the Assistant Collector who classified the item under TI 15A(4). The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and upheld the appellants’ claim. Against this order the Department has preferred E/1291/85-C. In the meanwhile the Department issued demand show cause notices dated 23-3-1984 and 24-11-1984 which were confirmed by both the authorities below by separate orders. E/223/88-C and E/44/89-C have been preferred by the assessees against the orders confirming the demands.
2. We have heard Shri P.S. Bedi, learned Consultant and Shri L.N. Murthy, learned DR.
3. The classification issue has already been settled by this Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Polyflex (P) Ltd. reported in 1988 (15) ECC 257 in which the Tribunal confirmed classification of saddle/seat manufactured in single injection moulding process with or without metal base under TI 68 as it stood before 28-2-1986. The Tribunal relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Geep Flashlight Industries v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1985 (22) ELT 3 (SC). The Tribunal also considered the commercial parlance test for arriving at classification of two wheeler seats under TI 68 holding that the product in question is a saddle or a seat for a scooter/motorcycle in the mind of the trader and it is not an article of polyurethane foam. The Tribunal also distinguished the decision in the case of Apex Rubber Ltd. reported in 1987 (14) ECC 379 on the ground that in the Apex Rubber case, the latex sponge seats required further processing which was not required in the case of two wheeler seats manufactured by single shot injection process, as in the above appeals.
4. Following the ratio of the Polyflex decision (supra) we set aside the impugned orders in E/223/88-C and E/44/89-C and allow these two appeals. Appeal No. E/1291/85-C filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.