2012 (7) TMI 675 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of the product Taped Sheets for Mattresses - Valuation - Cum duty price benefit - held that - After considering the tariff description and explanation in the HSN, it is quite clear that the product manufactured by the appellant finds its use as a mattress pad and further is specifically covered by the description of the product in the HSN. Since we find the heading 5810.00 more appropriate for the product, we hold that the claim of the assessee that the product is to be classified under 5810 has to be sustained. As regards cum-duty price - when duty has not been collected, the price has to be treated as cum-duty price - in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Change of name of the appellant from M/s. Soft Foam Industries Pvt. Ltd. to M/s. Sheela Foam Pvt. Ltd.
2. Classification of Taped Sheets for Mattresses and Quilted Textile product.
3. Treatment of value as cum-duty price for the purpose of calculation of differential duty of Central Excise.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Change of Name
The appellant, M/s. Soft Foam Industries Pvt. Ltd., sought a change of name to M/s. Sheela Foam Pvt. Ltd. due to a merger approved by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the change in the name of the assessee in all appeals as M/s. Sheela Foam Pvt. Ltd.

Issue 2: Classification of Products
- Taped Sheets for Mattresses: The counsel for the assessee did not press the appeal regarding the classification of Taped Sheets for Mattresses, citing a settled case and a Supreme Court dismissal. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue further.
- Quilted Textile product: The appellant contended that the product should be classified under heading 5810.00, while the Revenue argued for classification under 9404.00. After examining the product sample and relevant descriptions, the Tribunal found heading 5810.00 more specific and classified the product accordingly.

Issue 3: Treatment of Value
Regarding the treatment of value as cum-duty price, the Tribunal upheld the decision that the amount realized by the assessee should be treated as cum-duty price based on a Supreme Court precedent. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue against this conclusion was rejected.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the change of name of the assessee, partly allowed the appeal concerning the classification of the quilted textile product, and rejected the Revenue's appeal. The decision was pronounced on 24.01.2012.