2004 (1) TMI 608 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act, applicability of exemption notifications, availability of benefits under different notifications.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the duty of excise and penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The appellant contended that they sent laminated fabrics under Chapter X Procedure to another party who obtained the requisite CT 2 as per Notification No. 63/87-C.E. The Commissioner classified the goods under sub-heading 3926.90, denying them the exemption under the notification. The appellant argued that they cleared the goods under exemption Notification No. 63/87 under Chapter 59, following the permission given by the Central Excise Officer. They claimed that the liability for duty shifts to the consignee, not the consignor, in such cases. They also argued for exemption under Notification No. 214/86 and No. 217/86, stating compliance with Chapter X Procedure.

The Senior Departmental Representative countered that Notification No. 63/87 applies to fabrics falling under sub-heading 5903.21, not sub-heading 3926.90 where the goods were classified. The benefit of Notification No. 217/86 was deemed inapplicable as the factory where the goods were used did not belong to the appellants. It was highlighted that the appellants did not claim the benefit of Notification No. 214/86 before the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant argued that exemption notifications can be claimed at any stage, per settled law.

The Tribunal upheld that the benefit of Notification No. 63/87 was not available to the appellants due to the classification of goods under sub-heading 3926.90. They agreed that the benefit of Notification No. 217/86 was not applicable. However, they acknowledged the appellant's right to claim benefits under applicable notifications at any stage. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to examine the applicability of Notification No. 214/86. The appellants were directed to make submissions within four weeks. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, considering the old nature of the case.