9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (5) TMI 197 - AT - Central ExciseClassification - Excisability of PVC cure rods - Appellant contention is that their product is not marketable and therefore non-excisable and not classifiable under Heading 3916 - Appellant contends that PVC cure rods are intermediate product emerging in the manufacturing of PVC float which have short shelf-life and cannot be considered marketable - From the report of Department of Chemical Technology, we find that the report does not say anything about shelf life nor marketability or use of the PVC rods - As regards declaration given by Chartered Engineer, it is also silent on shelf life of the product - Therefore, appellant s contention that PVC cure rods have short shelf-life is not supported by any expert opinion - In the absence of any evidence of its short life, its marketability can not be ruled out - Decided against of assessee.
Issues:
Classification of PVC float, PVC cure rods, and waste and scrap under Central Excise Tariff Act; imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q; excisability of PVC cure rods; marketability and shelf-life of PVC cure rods; maintenance of Central Excise records; imposition of penalty. Classification of PVC Float, PVC Cure Rods, and Waste and Scrap: The case involved the classification of PVC float, PVC cure rods, and waste and scrap under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Assistant Commissioner classified PVC float under sub-heading 3926.90, PVC cure rods under sub-heading 3916.00, and waste and scrap under sub-heading 3915.30. Penalty was imposed on the assessee under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the classification of PVC float and PVC cure rods but held that waste and scrap were not exempted from duty. The appellant challenged the classification of PVC cure rods under Heading 3916, arguing that the product was not marketable and therefore not excisable. The appellant's contentions were based on expert opinions and reports. Excisability of PVC Cure Rods: The main issue was the excisability of PVC cure rods, which the appellant claimed were intermediate products with a short shelf-life and not marketable. The appellant presented a declaration by a Chartered Engineer stating that PVC rods were not a complete product and were only suitable for the manufacture of PVC floats. However, the report from the Department of Chemical Technology did not mention shelf-life or marketability. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the product was excisable as it had a use in the plastic industry and in the manufacture of PVC floats. The Tribunal found no evidence supporting the appellant's claim of short shelf-life, and therefore, upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the excisability of PVC cure rods. Maintenance of Central Excise Records and Imposition of Penalty: The appellant argued that since their goods were exempted products, the requirement of maintaining Central Excise records did not apply, and therefore, no penalty should be imposed. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) imposed penalties for not maintaining records. The Tribunal upheld the penalties, stating that the goods were excisable and the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claims of non-marketability and short shelf-life. The appeal was rejected based on these findings. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the classification of PVC float and PVC cure rods under the Central Excise Tariff Act, rejected the appellant's claims regarding the excisability of PVC cure rods, and upheld the penalties imposed for not maintaining Central Excise records.
|
