Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (9) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2015 (9) TMI 927 - AT - Central Excise


Issues:
Classification of goods under Tariff Heading 6807.10 vs. 6905.10

Analysis:
The appeal centered around the classification of goods manufactured by the assessee, specifically whether they should be classified under Tariff Heading 6807.10 or 6905.10. The revenue contended that the goods should fall under Chapter 69 instead of Chapter 68 due to the assessee's alleged attempt to benefit from the SSI exemption notification by changing the classification. The revenue sought to reverse the Commissioner (Appeals) decision classifying the goods under Chapter 68.

The Tribunal analyzed the competing entries of Chapter 68 and Chapter 69 to determine the correct classification. The revenue argued that the goods manufactured by the assessee, consisting of cubes affixed to a sheet, fell under Chapter 69 based on the description of goods under HSN Note 6907.10. However, the respondent maintained that the goods were sold as mosaic tiles and should be classified under Chapter 68.

The Tribunal referred to previous decisions involving similar goods and noted that the term 'ceramic' could be covered under both Chapter 68 and Chapter 69. The Tribunal scrutinized Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 69, emphasizing that it applies only to ceramic products fired after shaping. The Tribunal examined the composition of the goods and concluded that since the products were made predominantly of various stones with minimal clay material, they should be classified under Chapter 68.

The Tribunal highlighted the absence of evidence from the revenue to prove that the goods were ceramic and upheld its previous decision regarding similar goods. The Tribunal also referenced past decisions dismissed by the Apex Court, reinforcing the consistency in classification. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the classification of the goods under Chapter 68.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on the interpretation of relevant tariff headings, the characteristics of the goods in question, and the absence of concrete evidence to support reclassification. The judgment underscored the importance of consistent classification principles and upheld the initial classification of the goods under Tariff Heading 6807.10.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates