9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (1) TMI 1046 - Commissioner - Central ExciseClassification of goods - Refund claim - case of appellant is that the goods being manufactured by them were wrongly classified under Chapter 48 as dutiable goods whereas, the goods being manufactured by them were the Documents of Title falling under Chapter 49, which were exempted from Central Excise duty and the duty paid by them was liable to be refunded to them - CBEC Circular No. 11/91-CX. 4 dated 15-10-1991. Classification of goods - whether the products being manufactured by the appellant and enclosed as sample No. 1 to 8 are liable to be classified under Chapter 48 or Chapter 49? - Held that - Heading 4901, being identically worded as Chapter 49 in HSN and Central Excise Tariff Act, will, in the absence of anything contrary in Chapter and Section Notes, have the same scope as Chapter 49, HSN. It will cover all articles falling in any of the Headings of Chapter 49, HSN. Therefore, products having fiduciary value in excess of the intrinsic value, like cheques, forms, bond, share certificate, stamp impressed postal stationery, documents of title, etc., will be covered by Sub-heading 4901.90, CETA. Similarly, tickets, printed circulars, letters, forms etc. which are essentially printed matter requiring filling up of only minor details, would be covered by Sub-heading 4901.90. But, at the same time it is pertinent to mention that at the material time when this circular was issued, the Chapter 49 was containing only one Chapter Heading that is 4901 and the Chapter 49 was not aligned with the HSN whereas, the present status is that the said Chapter 49 is totally aligned with HSN therefore, classifying the documents of title under CH No. 4901, in terms of the circular will not be justified. The appellant s contention that their products fall under Chapter 49 is correct and liable to be up-held. Refund of duty - Held that - The appellant has not produced any document or the record as evidence to show that which goods were cleared by them during the relevant period. They have also failed to submit any reasoning or any record or document that proves that the goods cleared during the relevant period did not attract Central Excise duty. In absence of any proper reason or evidence on record, the refund claimed for earlier period cannot be held as admissible to the appellant and is liable to be turned down - the refund claimed by the appellant is not admissible to them. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of goods under Chapter 48 or Chapter 49. 2. Eligibility for refund of duty paid. Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of Goods: The appellant, M/s. Shree Datawares (P) Ltd., claimed that their products should be classified under Chapter 49 as "Documents of Title" which are exempt from Central Excise duty, rather than under Chapter 48 as dutiable goods. They relied on Order-in-Appeal No. 165-166-167/CE/Appl/KNP/2009 and CBEC Circular No. 11/91/CX.4 dated 15-10-1991. The department disallowed the refund on several grounds, including: - The appellant voluntarily classified the goods under Chapter 48 and paid duty. - Only one sample out of eight was considered a "Document of Title" under Chapter 49. - The appellant did not provide details of goods manufactured by M/s. Tirupati Stationery Pvt. Ltd. - The Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide justifiable reasons for reclassification from Chapter 48 to Chapter 49. - An appeal was filed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order in the case of M/s. Tirupati Stationery Pvt. Ltd. - Allowing the refund would result in unjust enrichment under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Upon review, it was observed that the adjudicating authority did not provide detailed reasoning for classifying the goods under Chapter 48. The authority also failed to critically examine the nature and use of the documents, which led to an improper classification. The appellant's submissions were detailed, emphasizing that their products were "Documents of Title" with fiduciary value exceeding intrinsic value, thus falling under Chapter 49. They provided specific descriptions for each sample, arguing that these documents were not general stationery but had specific fiduciary uses. The judgment noted that the adjudicating authority's disagreement with the Commissioner (Appeals) was without proper reasoning and amounted to contempt of court, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in UOI v. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. 1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.). The analysis concluded that the appellant's products should be classified under Chapter 49, specifically under Chapter Sub-Heading 49070090, which covers documents with fiduciary value in excess of intrinsic value. 2. Eligibility for Refund: The adjudicating authority denied the refund on the grounds of unjust enrichment, stating that the appellant voluntarily paid the duty and passed the incidence to the buyers. However, the judgment pointed out that the unjust enrichment clause applies only when the duty paid becomes refundable but cannot be refunded due to the incidence being passed on to buyers. The appellant failed to provide evidence or documentation proving that the goods cleared during the relevant period did not attract Central Excise duty. In the absence of such evidence, the refund claim for the earlier period was deemed inadmissible. Conclusion: The Order-in-Original No. 89/ACK-III/09 dated 30-11-2009 was modified to classify the appellant's products under Chapter 49, but the refund claim was denied due to lack of evidence proving non-liability of duty for the cleared goods. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
