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 + SC Central Excise - 2015 (11) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2015 (11) TMI 963 - SC - Central Excise


Issues:
Classification of floor coverings with plastic lamination by M/s. SPL Siddhartha Limited under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Chapter Heading 3918.90 vs. Chapter Heading 59.03.

Analysis:
The case involves a dispute regarding the classification of floor coverings manufactured by M/s. SPL Siddhartha Limited, specifically focusing on products laminated with plastic on both sides and products laminated with plastic on a single side. The Department argues for classification under Chapter Heading 3918.90, while the assessee contends that they should be classified under Chapter Heading 59.03. The manufacturing process involves jute fabrics, bitumen, polyethylene chips, and master batch, where plastic lamination is applied to the jute fabric. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) accepted the assessee's claim, emphasizing that the products are primarily jute-based and not plastic products. The Tribunal found that the products fall under Chapter Heading 59.04, which covers floor coverings with a coating on a textile backing, aligning with the jute-based floor coverings in question.

The Tribunal's decision is supported by the manufacturing process, highlighting the dominance of jute in the final product and the application of plastic as a coating. The subsequent amendment in 2005 further clarifies the classification under Entry 5904.90.10 as "Floor coverings with jute base," confirming the nature of the product in question. The judgment affirms that the products are rightly classified under Chapter Heading 59.04, emphasizing the jute base of the floor coverings. The order of the CESTAT is upheld, dismissing the appeal against the classification decision.

Regarding the duty implications, the Tariff Entry prescribes a 16% duty rate. However, the assessee points out Exemption Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., which specifies nil duty for the product in question. The judgment does not interfere with the classification decision and affirms the exemption from duty as per the relevant notification. Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed, maintaining the classification of the floor coverings with plastic lamination under Chapter Heading 59.04 and confirming the exemption from duty as per the applicable notification.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates