V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
1. These are three appeals arising out of common order dated 17-3-1993 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Trichy involving the classification of precured tread rubber in rolls and sheets form, whether classifiable under sub-heading 4016.99 as claimed by the appellants or under sub-heading 4008.21 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.
2. When the matters were called no one was present on behalf of any of the appellants in spite of notice issued to all the appellants and their Advocate”, nor is there any request for adjournment. We therefore heard Shri A.M. Tilak, ld. DR and perused the records. The appellants have submitted in their memorandum of appeal that the impugned product was classifiable under Heading 4016.99 of the Tariff as per the clarification issued by the CBEC vide Circular No. 61/89, dated 10-11-1989. They have further submitted that Heading 40.80 covers vulcanised rubber in the form of plates, sheets, strips etc. whereas Heading 40.16 is intended to cover articles of vulcanised rubber; that products made of vulcanised rubber and known commercially as separately identifiable and independent products or articles must fall under Heading 40.16.
3. Countering the arguments Shri A.M. Tilak, ld. DR submitted that the issue involved in the present appeals is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of MRF Ltd. v. CCE – 1993 (67) E.L.T. 968. He further submitted that Note 9 to Chapter 40 was amended and according to the amended Note 9 the product will be classifiable under sub-heading 4008.21.
4. We have considered the above submissions of the ld. DR and perused the records. We agree with the ld. DR that the issue involved in the present appeals is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in MRF Ltd. (supra) in which it was held that precured tread rubber was classifiable under Heading 4016.99 in terms of Board’s letter. However, by virtue of the amendment to Note 9 to Chapter 40 of the Tariff the goods become classifiable under Heading 4008.21. Following the ratio of decision in the case of MRF Ltd. (supra), we reject all the three appeals.