2018 (2) TMI 1796 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 10/2003-C.E. dated 1-3-2003 - Process of manufacture of decorative plywood/fibre board flush doors panel doors etc. - Held that - The Tribunal in the case of CCE Meerut v. Simba FRP (P) Ltd. 1999 (12) TMI 452 - CEGAT NEW DELHI held that the process of manufacture of doors are different. Both are classified under separate heading not only in the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) but also by the Customs Tariff Act. The flush doors and panel doors are technically and commercially different processed. In the market among dealers builders construction engineers architects etc. both items are identified separately and used differently. Both doors are different - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of exemption Notification No. 10/2003-C.E. for the manufacture of doors.

Analysis:

The case involved an appeal against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 122 & 123/2007, dated 15-1-2008, concerning the manufacture of decorative plywood/fibre board, flush doors, and panel doors by the appellant under the benefit of exemption Notification No. 10/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003. The lower authorities contended that the process of manufacturing both types of doors was identical, thus denying the exemption and demanding duty at a rate of 16% adv. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the appellant, leading to the Department filing the present appeal.

During the proceedings, both parties presented various decisions that had been previously considered by the lower authorities. The Tribunal referred to the case of CCE, Meerut v. Simba FRP (P) Ltd. [2000 (125) E.L.T. 539 (Tri.)], where it was established that flush doors and panel doors are technically and commercially distinct products. These doors are classified separately under the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) and the Customs Tariff Act, with different demand, prices, and usage in the market. Panel doors, a relatively new concept, have specific BIS specifications introduced in 2003 and may involve imported parts like plastic components, unlike flush doors that solely use wood.

Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal concluded that flush doors and panel doors are indeed different products. Considering this distinction, the Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision and upheld the impugned order, providing detailed reasoning for their decision. Consequently, the Department's appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was sustained.

The judgment was delivered on 6-2-2018 by Dr. Satish Chandra, President of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore.