2007 (6) TMI 46 - AT - Central Excise

Classification - Department contended that the appellant goods (Aluminium foil) is classifiable under SH 3920.38 and 3923.90 of CET and not under SH 7607.60ibid - Held that revenue contention was not correct and rejected

Summary

Issues: Classification of aluminium foil covered with polyester film and polyethylene.

The judgment pertains to the classification of aluminium foil covered on one side with a polyester film and polyethylene on the other side. The matter was remanded back to the Tribunal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after setting aside the earlier order. The classification of printed or unprinted laminated aluminium foils/pouches under S.H. No. 7607.60 was claimed by the appellants based on the thickness of the aluminium foils not exceeding 0.2 mm, excluding the thickness of backing materials. The appellants also manufactured other products like plastic film/polyethylene laminated paper and paper board, claiming classification under different headings. The test results of the aluminium foils/pouches indicated a significant plastic content, leading the Revenue to dispute the classification and issue a Show Cause Notice for classification under different headings. The Revenue's classification was accepted upon adjudication, and the same was confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The test report showed a predominance of plastic content in the samples, leading to the conclusion that the product retained characteristics of plastic. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appellants' own case had previously held that when plastic content predominates, the product is classified as plastic. However, since the goods were coated on both sides, Chapter 76 only covered "backed" foils, meaning the coating could only be on one side. Therefore, the goods were deemed classifiable under different headings. Applying the Supreme Court's ratio from the appellants' previous case, the impugned order confirming the classification under different headings was deemed correct. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on both grounds of non-prosecution and merits.