2008 (6) TMI 505 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
Classification of "laminated particles board" and "laminated MDF Board" under subheading No. 4406.90/4407.90 or under subheading No. 4408.90.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of Products
The primary issue in this case revolves around the classification of the products manufactured by the appellant, namely "laminated particles board" and "laminated MDF Board." The appellant contends that these products, covered on both sides with decorative paper and lacking veneers, should not be classified under subheading No. 4408.90 as asserted by the Revenue. Instead, they argue that the products fall under subheading No. 4406.90/4407.90. The appellant relies on previous Tribunal decisions, specifically Commissioner of Central Excise v. Kitply Industries Ltd. and CCE v. Kitply Industries Ltd., to support their classification claim.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Tariff Headings
The learned DR, representing the Revenue, supports the Commissioner (Appeals) finding and argues that the absence of veneers in laminated particle boards does not preclude their classification under heading No. 4408.90. Reference is made to Chapter 44.12 of HSN, which is akin to Tariff Heading No. 4408 of the Indian Customs Tariff Act, to emphasize that veneers are not a prerequisite for classification under this heading. The DR further cites the decision of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. to strengthen the Revenue's position.

Issue 3: Tribunal's Decision
After considering the arguments from both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal notes that the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the classification of the products under Heading No. 4480.90 based on Chapter 44.12 of HSN. The Tribunal delves into the distinctions between the relevant headings: 4408 for "plywood, veneered panels, and similar laminated wood," 4406 for "Particle board and similar board of wood," and 4407 for "Fibreboard of wood." The Tribunal highlights the appellant's claim that the products are covered with decorative paper, not veneer, and therefore should not fall under 4408. The Tribunal references the Kitply Industries Ltd. case, where it was held that laminated particles board with paper board should be classified under subheading No. 4406.90/4407.90, not under 4408.90. The Tribunal's decision ultimately overturns the impugned order, classifying the products under heading 44.06/44.07 and allowing both appeals with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis and interpretation of the relevant tariff headings, supported by precedents and legal principles, led to the reclassification of the products in question. The judgment emphasizes the importance of accurate classification under the customs tariff and highlights the significance of key factors such as the presence of veneers in determining the appropriate classification for laminated wood products.