2005 (10) TMI 330 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of Ceramic Tableware under Central Excise Tariff Act, Duty Determination, Penalty Imposition

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai involved a case where the appellants had removed Ceramic Tableware falling under Chapter sub-heading 6910.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act during a specific period without accurately describing the goods in the classification lists filed with the proper officer and without determining the duty on the goods prior to their removal. A show cause notice proposing duty recovery and penalty imposition was issued. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the demand, rejected the appellants' claim for classification under CETA sub-heading 6909.10, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000 under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal.

Despite the absence of representation for the appellants, the Tribunal considered the case based on records and submissions. The appellants had initially classified their products under CETA sub-heading 6909.10 and paid duty at a concessional rate under Notification No. 175/86. However, after subsequent amendments to the notification, they claimed classification under CETA sub-heading 6910.00 to avail a duty exemption. The Tribunal noted that the appellants were aware that their products should be classified under CETA sub-heading 6909.00 as made of ceramic but deliberately misclassified them to benefit from a concessional duty rate. Consequently, the duty demand was upheld, and a penalty was deemed necessary due to the intentional misdeclaration for duty rate advantages not rightfully available to them.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, confirming the duty demand and penalty imposition, while rejecting the appeal brought forth by the appellants. The decision emphasized the importance of accurate classification and duty determination in line with the Central Excise Tariff Act, highlighting the repercussions of intentional misrepresentation for duty rate benefits.