2004 (12) TMI 482 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of products under Heading 96.06 or Heading 83.08

Issue 1: Classification of products under Heading 96.06
The appeal was filed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order classifying brass eyelets, rivet sets, toti buttons, and other items under Heading 9606. The appellants claimed classification under Heading 96.06 for buttons manufactured by them in 1992-93. The Commissioner noted the introduction of Section 11AB and Section 11AC in 1996 and found no suppression or misdeclaration regarding the classification. The demand for Central Excise duty was confirmed for a specific period, and no penalty was deemed applicable before September 28, 1996. Penalties imposed on traders were questioned due to lack of evidence linking them to contraventions.

Issue 2: Argument for classification under Heading 83.08
The Revenue contended that the products were not buttons but should be classified under Heading 83.08, which covers various base metal items used in clothing, footwear, and other articles. It was argued that the items in question, such as buckles and eyelets, did not fall under 96.06 as they were used in leather products like purses and shoes, not apparel or household articles.

Issue 3: Consideration of items as buttons
The Commissioner's finding that the entities in question were buttons and that different parts cleared independently could be considered functional buttons was not challenged. There was no evidence to suggest that the disputed entities could not be classified as buttons.

Issue 4: Comparison of competing Headings
Upon reviewing Headings 83.08 and 96.06, it was determined that Heading 96.06 was the appropriate classification based on the numerical order. The order classifying the items under 96.06 was upheld, with reference to a previous case and no contradictory evidence presented.

Conclusion
The Tribunal confirmed the Commissioner (Appeals) order classifying the items under Heading 96.06, rejecting the Revenue's appeal as lacking merit. The classification under 96.06 was deemed appropriate, and the appeal was dismissed accordingly.