Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Prayag Polymers (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 10 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(118)ELT227(TRI-DEL)
ORDER G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. In the impugned order the ld Commissioner (Appeals) held that -
"Appellant desired the classification under Chapter 3926 read with Notification No. 53/86. Chapter 3925 relates to builders ware of plastic not elsewhere classified. I agree with the classification of the Department to these goods under Chapter 3925 which is more specific whereas the appellant desired the classification of general nature. In view of this, the goods cleared under Chapter 3925 will be dutiable and also includible in the value of clearances for availing of SSI benefits under Notification No. 1/93. Therefore, the demand of Rs. 1,60,185/- is justified".
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of different type of various items of plastic. These items were being manufactured through injection moulding process. Such moulded goods were then processed and subjected to finishing. The appellants were filing declaration under Rule 174A and when examined Revenue found that various items were classifiable under different chapter headings/sub-headings, therefore, a dispute arose as to what is the classification of the products manufactured by the appellants and to what extent the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 could be made available to the appellants. The Asstt. Commissioner adjudicated the case classified the goods under various headings confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty. The appellants filed appeal and in appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held as indicated above.
3. Shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the order passed by the authorities below is contrary to the directions of the Tribunal. He submits that this Tribunal when the case came up before it earlier at the remand order held that earlier the goods had been classified under Chapter 39 and in view of that position they had not availed Modvat credit and the said chapter was outside the puriew of the Modvat scheme. Subsequently the Department had sought to reclassify the goods under Chapter 84. This chapter being covered under the Modvat scheme, on them Modvat should be granted, after it is ultimately held that the classification proposed by the Department is correct. As this position had not been properly gone into the proceedings so far. It should be deemed a fit case for remand to the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise for de novo decision on merits after granting the Opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants.
Ld. Counsel submitted that the adjudicating authority has not taken all the pleas of the appellants into consideration. He submits that benefit of Modvat credit of duty paid on raw-materials should have been allowed to them. He submitted that the appellants had sought classification of their product under Heading 3926.90 with benefit of Notification No. 53/88 dated 1-3-1988 but the Order-in-Original classified the same under Heading 3925.99. He submitted that even if the goods manufactured by them are classifiable under Heading 3925.99, the rate of duty will be at a rate of 10% ad valorem under Notification No. 53/88 and not 20%. Ld. Counsel also submitted that benefit of Notification No.175/86 dated 1-3-1986 has also been denied. Ld. Counsel submitted that the goods to be classified under Rule 39.25 are listed in Note 11 of Chapter 39. He submitted that none of these goods are mentioned in this Chapter Heading, therefore, they cannot be classified under Heading 39.25. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed.
4. Shri Ravinder Babu, ld. DR appearing for the respondent Commissioner submits that the lower authorities examined the provisions of various chapters specifically Chapter 39 and Chapter 84. He submits that some goods were specifically mentioned in Chapter 84 and other goods come under Chapter 39. He submits that on detailed examination they have classified the goods and computed the differential duty payable after allowing the appellants Modvat credit where-ever admissible. He submits that contention of the appellants that there was non-application of mind is not correct. He submits that all the aspects were examined in the Order-in-Original and in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). It was not considered necessary to be repeated before him again and that is why the brief order was considered sufficient. He reiterates the findings of the authorities below.
5. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that there are two issues in the appeal. The first issue is classification of the 17 products manufactured by the appellants and the second is that the admissibility of Notification No. 1/93 to the appellants.
6. For deciding the first issue i.e. classification of the products we have examined the Chapter headings and Chapter notes of Chapter 39 and 84. After scrutiny of the requirement of these two Chapters and examination of the use of the product, we hold that the classification of the products is as under:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. No. Description Use Sub-head No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) (2) (3) (4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Waste coupling In wash basin/sinks 3924.90
(ii) Gratings Floor gratings 3926.90
(iii) Taps Waster taps 8481.80
(iv) Ball cocks In water tanks 8481.80
(v) Showers For shower bath 3924.90
(vi) Shower arms For showers 3924.90
(vii) Flange Used alongwith taps 8481.99
(viii) Bottle taps In wash basin/sinks 3924 90
(ix) Shelf with tumbler For keeping soap/ 3924.90
paste etc.
(x) Liquid soap container For keeping liquid soap 3924.90
(xi) Towel ring For keeping towel 3924.90
(xii) Handle For doors & windows 3925 99
(xiii) Hinges - do - 3925.99
(xiv) Door catchers Zor doors 3925 99
(xv) Cabinet catchers For wooden cabinets & 3926.90
drawers
(xvi) Flush pull For drawers & sliding 3926.90
cabinets
xvii) Mortish (lock handle) For doors 3925 99
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Once the classification as above is decided, the question of admissibility of the benefit under Notification 1/93 becomes simple. The lower authorities are, therefore, directed that the appellants will be entitled to the benefit of Notification 1/93. In terms of the value of clearances not exceeding the exemption limit and differential duty shall be chargeable only at the appropriate rate if aggregate value as computed in terms of the above classification exceeds the exemption limit. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.