2011 (4) TMI 1118 - AT - Central Excise

Classification SSI exemption - manufacture of connectors with wire which was classifiable according to them under CETH 8536.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (Tariff). The department took a view that the product is classifiable under CETH 8544.00 of the Tariff Held that - in the case of Union Connectors Pvt. Ltd. (2008 - TMI - 31950 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) , product similar to the one manufactured by the respondent is classifiable under CETH 8536.90, registration was provisional and the product was not listed. The Notification does not require final approval or final registration but requires only registration. It is not the case of the Revenue that provisional registration was cancelled. Consequently, it is also not the case of the Revenue that Director of Industries did not find it appropriate to indicate the name of the product in the certificate, appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of the product under CETH 8536.90 or CETH 8544.00 of the Tariff
2. Eligibility of the respondent for SSI benefit based on registration status

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the classification of the product 'connectors with wire' manufactured by the respondent. The department contended that the product should be classified under CETH 8544.00, while the respondent argued for classification under CETH 8536.90. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision by the Larger Bench in a similar case, where it was held that a product akin to the one in question should be classified under CETH 8536.90. Based on this precedent, the Tribunal upheld the classification of the product under CETH 8536.90, in favor of the respondent.

2. The issue of the respondent's eligibility for the Small Scale Industries (SSI) benefit was also addressed in the judgment. The Revenue challenged the SSI exemption granted to the respondent on the grounds that their registration was provisional and the product was not listed. However, the Tribunal noted that the Notification only required registration, not necessarily final approval. Since there was no indication that the provisional registration was canceled or that the Director of Industries objected to listing the product, the Tribunal found no basis to overturn the impugned order. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the respondent's eligibility for the SSI benefit based on the registration status.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, addressed the issues of product classification and SSI benefit eligibility in favor of the respondent, based on legal interpretations and precedents cited during the proceedings.