vil Appeal No 2089 of 1985
with CA Nos
99 100 of 1986  3340 46 of 1984
From the Judgment and Order dated 24111983 of the Excise  Gold Control Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No ED SB 125583 D 1227 Hemant Sharma CV Subba Rao and K Swamy for the Appellant
RN Banerjee and KJ John for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA J
Each of these appeals under Section 35 L b of the Central Excise and Salt Act 1944 is direct ed against the decision of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal
The short question arising in each of them is as to whether PVC Conveyor Belting manu factured by the different respondents in these appeals comes within the purview of Item 223 or would be governed by the residuary entry 68 for purposes of excise duty under the Central Excise Tariff
According to the respondents the appropriate Item is 68 while according to the Revenue Item 22 squarely covers the commodity
The Tribunal has accepted the stand of manufacturers
That is how all these appeals have been carried by the Collector of Central Excise
The Assistant Collector who initiated the proceeding in the show cause notice reproduced the Departmental Chemical Examiner s Certificate
Therein it was stated The sample is in the form of cut piece of black coloured Belting of width 10 cms
and thickness 9 mm
It is composed of synthetic resin of PVC type reinforced with textile fabric containing 423 by weight of cotton and rest viscose man made filament yarns of cellulosic origin
Percentage of textile fabric  433
Percentage of PVC Compound  567
This position has not been disputed at any stage nor even before us
The Tribunal has recorded a finding that PVC compounding was done simultaneously with the weaving of the fabric from yarn which clearly indicated that the process of manufacture was conversion from yarn to fabric as also the application of the PVC Compound carried on at the same point of time
Learned counsel for the appellants who ini tially attempted to challenge this fact was ultimately obliged to accept the situation as a finding of fact
In fact before the Tribunal the departmental representative had relied upon this position as would appear from the judgment of the Tribunal
1228 It is not disputed that if the commodity would not be covered by item 22 residuary Item 68 of the Schedule would be applicable
Item 22 provides thus MAN MADE FABRICS Man made fabrics means all varieties of fabrics manufactured either wholly or partly from man made fibres or yarn and includes embroidery in the piece in strips or in mo tifs fabrics impregnated coated or laminated with preparations of cellulose derivatives or of other artificial plastic materials and fabrics covered partially or fully with tex tile flocks or with preparation containing textile flocks in each of which man made i cellulosic fibre or yarn or ii non cellu losic fibre or yaru predominates in weight Explanation I Base fabrics means fabrics failing under sub item 1 of this Item which are subjected to the process of embroidery or which arc imprignated  coated or laminated with preparations of cellulose derivatives or of other plastic materials or which are cov ered partially or fully with textile flocks or with preparations containing textile flocks
Explanation II       
Explanation III Explanation II under Item No 19 shall so far as may be apply in relation to this Item as it applies in relation to that item
 It is accepted that yarn is woven into fabric
Item 19 deals with cotton fabrics while Item 22 deals with man made fabrics
On the footing recorded by the Tribunal it is claimed that there was no preexisting base fabric and the manufacturing process simultaneously brought into existence the commodity by weaving yarn into fabric and application of PVC Compound
In view of the higher percentage of PVC Compound in commodity it becomes difficult to treat the ultimate goods as man made fabrics for holding that it is covered by Item 22
Upon this analysis it follows that the Tribunal came to the correct conclusion when it held that the goods were not covered by Item 22 and therefore the residuary item 68 applied
All these appeals are without any merit and are dismissed
Each of the respondents should be entitled to its costs
NPV Appeals dismissed


Summary:
The respondents manufacturers of PVC Conveyor Belt ing contended before the Customs Excise and Gold Control Tribunal that for purposes of excise duty under the Central Excise Tariff this item fell under Item 68
The Revenue submitted that the commodity was governed by Item 22
The Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that PVC compounding was done simultaneously with the weaving of the fabric from yarn and held that this item should be governed by the residuary Entry 68 for the purposes of excise duty
Dismissing the appeals by the Revenue the Court HELD It is accepted that yarn is woven into fabric
Item 19 deals with cotton fabrics while Item 22 deals with man made fabrics
The Tribunal recorded a finding that PVC compounding was done simultaneously with the weaving of the fabric from yarn which clearly indicated that the process of manufacture was conversion from yarn to fabric as also the application of the PVC Compound carried on at the same point
1228F 1227FG In view of the higher percentage of PVC Compound in the commodity it becomes difficult to treat the ultimate goods as manmade fabrics for holding that it is covered by Item 22
Upon this analysis the Tribunal was correct in holding that the goods were not covered by Item 22 and therefore the residuary Item 68 applied
 1228G