2016 (2) TMI 973 - SC - Central Excise

Classification of manufactured goods - Par Boiling Machine and Dryer - classified under Chapter Heading 84.37 of Central Excise Tariff or under Chapter Heading 84.19 - conflict in judicial opinion expressed by two coordinate Benches of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Held that - we request the President of the CESTAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi to pass appropriate orders on the application filed by the respondent and have the conflict resolved by a larger Bench of the Tribunal.

Summary

Issues: Conflict in judicial opinion regarding classification of Par Boiling Machine and Dryer under Central Excise Tariff - Request for reference to larger Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) to resolve the conflict.

In this case, the main issue revolves around a conflict in judicial opinion within the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) regarding the classification of Par Boiling Machine and Dryer under the Central Excise Tariff. One line of decisions by the Tribunal classifies these machines under Chapter Heading 84.37, while another line of decisions categorizes them under Chapter Heading 84.19. The appellant's counsel highlights this conflict and mentions that the respondent-Excise department has filed an application seeking reference of the matter to a larger Bench for resolution, which is pending. The appellant requests the Tribunal to resolve the conflict by referring the matters to a larger Bench for a conclusive decision.

The learned senior counsel for the respondent does not oppose the appellant's prayer for reference to a larger Bench to resolve the conflict. Consequently, the Supreme Court requests the President of the CESTAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi to pass appropriate orders on the respondent's application and ensure that the conflict is resolved by a larger Bench of the Tribunal. The Court emphasizes the need for expeditious resolution, ideally within six months from the current date. The matter is adjourned to await the final judgment of the Tribunal once the reference is made for clarification and resolution of the conflicting opinions within the Tribunal.