2003 (10) TMI 332 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Duty demand on laminated paper with aluminum foil, classification under Chapter Heading 39.20 vs. CETA sub-heading 3607.60, waiver of pre-deposit of duty.

In this case, duty demand of Rs. 2,87,952/- on laminated paper with aluminum foil was confirmed as duty on the ground that the product falls under Chapter Heading 39.20, not under CETA sub-heading 3607.60 as claimed by the applicants. The Tribunal had previously classified the identical product under Chapter Heading 76.06 for the same assessee. The Tribunal found a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit based on the previous order and stayed the recovery of duty pending the appeal. The contention regarding the circular clarifying the classification under Chapter 39 would be considered in detail during the appeal hearing. The waiver of pre-deposit was granted following the Tribunal's previous order, allowing the appeal to proceed without the deposit of duty.

The main issue revolved around the classification of the product, specifically whether it falls under Chapter Heading 39.20 or CETA sub-heading 3607.60. The duty demand was based on the classification under Chapter Heading 39.20, which the applicants contested, seeking classification under a different sub-heading. The Tribunal considered the previous order for the same assessee where the product was classified under a different heading, indicating a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit.

The Tribunal noted the contention regarding a circular issued by the Board clarifying the classification under Chapter 39 based on the presence of aluminum foil on both sides of the paper. This clarification was to be examined in detail during the appeal hearing, and the Tribunal decided to stay the recovery of duty pending the appeal based on the prima facie case for waiver established by the previous order.

The decision to grant the waiver of pre-deposit and stay the recovery of duty was made in light of the Tribunal's previous order classifying the identical product under a different heading for the same assessee. The Tribunal found merit in the applicant's argument for waiver based on the previous classification and allowed the appeal to proceed without the deposit of the duty amount. The specific classification issue and the interpretation of the circular by the Board were to be further deliberated during the appeal hearing, emphasizing the importance of a detailed examination of the classification criteria.