1997 (12) TMI 634 - SC - Central Excise

Whether paper based laminated Sheets/Boards are classifiable for the purpose of excise duty under Heading 3920.21 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or under Heading 4818.90 of the said Schedule till February 28,1988 and under Heading 4823.90 of the said Schedule on and after March 1,1988 ? Held that - In view of the CCE Hyderabad v. Bakelite Hylam Ltd. 1997 (3) TMI 598 - SUPREME COURT decision the products manufactured by the appellants, namely, paper based decorative laminated sheets do not fall under sub-heading 4923.90. The appellants are, therefore, not entitled to claim the benefit of concessional rate of duty on the basis of Notification No. 135/89 dated May 12, 1989 and the Notification No. 20/94 dated March 1,1994. The fact that products known commercially as decorative laminates have been expressly mentioned in entry at serial No. 6, as substituted on the basis of Notification No. 144/94 dated December 22, 1994, does not mean that prior to the issuance of the Notification No. 144/94 dated December 22, 1994 products known commercially as decorative laminates fell within the ambit of the Notification No. 135/89 dated May, 12 1989 and No. 20/94 dated March 1, 1994 for the purpose of concessional rate of duty. The insertion of products known commercially as decorative laminates by Notification No. 144/94 dated December 22,1994 only means that these products have been expressly excluded for the purpose of applicability of the concessional rate of duty. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of paper-based decorative laminated sheets/boards.
2. Classification of cotton fabric-based laminates.
3. Classification of paper-based insulators.
4. Applicability of concessional rate of excise duty under Notification No. 135/89-CE dated May 12, 1989.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Paper-Based Decorative Laminated Sheets/Boards:
The primary issue was whether paper-based decorative laminated sheets/boards should be classified under Heading 3920.21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, as claimed by the Revenue, or under Heading 4818.90 till February 28, 1988, and under Heading 4823.90 on and after March 1, 1988, as found by the Customs Excise & Gold [Control] Appellate Tribunal [the Tribunal].

The Tribunal had classified these products under Heading 4818.90/4823.90 based on its earlier judgments in Amit Polymers & Composited Ltd., Hyderabad v. CCE Hyderabad and M/s Meghdoot Laminate Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE Ahmedabad. However, the Supreme Court in CCE Hyderabad v. Bakelite Hylam Ltd., (1997) 91 ELT 13(SC) reversed this view, holding that decorative laminated sheets were classifiable under Heading 3920.31/3920.37 of the New Tariff.

The Supreme Court reiterated that the essential character of decorative laminated sheets is imparted by the chemical solutions used, making them rigid and resistant to heat and moisture, characteristics not possessed by paper alone. Therefore, these products are more appropriately classified under Chapter 39. The Court also referred to the Harmonised System of Nomenclature, which supports the classification of such laminated sheets under Chapter 39 if they have a hard, rigid character.

2. Classification of Cotton Fabric-Based Laminates:
The Tribunal had classified cotton fabric-based laminates under Heading 3922.90 till February 28, 1988, and under Heading 3926.90 on and after March 1, 1988. The Supreme Court, following the Bakelite Hylam Ltd. decision, held that these products should be classified under Heading 3920.21 till February 28, 1988, and under Heading 3920.37 on and after March 1, 1988.

3. Classification of Paper-Based Insulators:
The Tribunal had classified paper-based insulators under Heading 8546.00, relying on its decision in CCE Ahmedabad v. Metro Wood Engineering Works. The Supreme Court upheld this classification, noting that it was consistent with the Bakelite Hylam Ltd. decision.

4. Applicability of Concessional Rate of Excise Duty:
The appellants sought a concessional rate of excise duty under Notification No. 135/89-CE dated May 12, 1989. This notification exempted goods falling under subheading No. 4823.90 from excess duty, except for products consisting of sheets of paper or paperboard impregnated, coated, or covered with plastics.

The appellants argued that their products, made by coating and impregnating paper with Phenol Formaldehyde Solution and Melamine Formaldehyde solution, did not fall under this exception. However, the Supreme Court, referencing Bakelite Hylam Ltd., held that paper-based decorative laminated sheets or boards fall under Chapter 39, not Chapter 48. Consequently, the products did not qualify for the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 135/89-CE.

The Court also noted that the subsequent amendment by Notification No. 144/94-C.E. dated December 22, 1994, explicitly excluded decorative laminates from the concessional rate, affirming that these products were not eligible for the concessional rate even before the amendment.

Conclusion:
Civil Appeals Nos. 1852-53 of 1991 were partly allowed, maintaining the Tribunal's decision on paper-based insulators but setting aside its decision on the classification of paper-based decorative laminated sheets and cotton fabric-based laminates. Civil Appeals Nos. 2516-21 of 1992 and 11899 of 1996 were also allowed, with the Tribunal's judgment on paper-based decorative laminated sheets being set aside. The appeals concerning the concessional rate of excise duty (Civil Appeals Nos. 7027/1995, 7029/1995, 9483/1996, 221/1997, 10466/1995, 10489/1995) were dismissed.

← Previous Next →