2011 (3) TMI 1201 - AT - Central Excise

Classification - prickly heat powder - Chapter Heading No.33.04 or No.30.03 - Held that - As decided in Muller & Phipps (India) Ltd., Vs. CCE, (2004 (5) TMI 68 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) wherein held that the prickly heat powder is classifiable under Heading No.30.03 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Decided in favor of the assessee

Summary

Issues: Classification of prickly heat powder under Chapter Heading No.30.03 or No.33.04.

The judgment involves an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, where the assessee and the Revenue are in dispute over the classification of prickly heat powder. The appellants classified the product under Chapter Heading No.30.03, while the department sought to classify it under Heading No.33.04, leading to the present controversy. The Assistant Commissioner initially classified the product under Chapter Heading No.33.04, a decision overturned by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the assessee, who classified it under Heading No.30.03. Consequently, the department appealed against the classification under Heading No.30.03, and the assessee appealed against the order that classified the product under Chapter Heading No.33.04. The central issue at hand is whether the prickly heat powder should be classified under Chapter Heading No.30.03 as claimed by the assessee or under Chapter Heading No.33.04 as contended by the Revenue.

Upon deliberation, the Tribunal referred to a precedent set by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Muller & Phipps (India) Ltd., Vs. CCE, where it was established that prickly heat powder falls under Heading No.30.03 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Citing this authoritative decision, the Tribunal concluded that the issue was no longer res integra and proceeded to classify the impugned product under Heading No.30.03, aligning with the apex Court's ruling. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. In light of this classification, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, overturning the previous order that confirmed the demand and penalty against the assessee. The Tribunal's decision was based on the established legal precedent and the correct interpretation of the relevant tariff provisions, resulting in a favorable outcome for the assessee.

---