2008 (2) TMI 203 - AT - Central Excise

Classification - Since the Revenue was seeking classification different from one claimed by assessee, the burden was on Revenue to bring out that process undertaken by respondents was different from the one claimed by it - In the absence of the same, the Revenue cannot take a stand that the adjudicating authority should have verified the process of manufacture - There is no claim by Revenue regarding composition of good, so exemption to surface active preparation u/not. 101/66 can t be denied

Summary

Issues: Classification of products under Tariff item 15AA and admissibility of exemption Notification No. 101/66

In the present case, the first issue pertains to the classification of products manufactured by Vinit Industries under Tariff item 15AA. The dispute arose when the Revenue issued a show cause notice claiming that the products fell under Tariff item 15AA(1) instead. The Tribunal, in a previous order, had classified the products under Tariff item 15AA only, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Silicon (I) Pvt. Ltd. The Respondent argued that since the products were identical to those discussed in the Tribunal's decision, the classification confirmed by the Tribunal should be followed, and the Commissioner's Order upholding the classification should be upheld. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner should have verified the manufacturing process before confirming the classification. However, as the Revenue did not prove that the process undertaken by the respondents was different, the Tribunal upheld the classification under Tariff item 15AA, as per the previous decision.

The second issue revolves around the admissibility of exemption Notification No. 101/66, dated 17-6-1966, which exempts duty paid surface active preparation containing less than five percent of principal active ingredients from Central Excise duty. The Revenue argued that the exemption was extended without verifying whether the preparation manufactured by Vinit Industries met the criteria of having less than 5% principal active ingredients. The Commissioner, in a decision made 15 years later, pointed out the impracticality of determining the percentage of principal active ingredients after such a long period. The Respondents had claimed exemption under Notification 101/66 and the burden to prove that the preparation did not meet the criteria was on the Revenue. Since the Revenue did not claim that the percentage was more than 5%, the Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner's decision to extend the benefit of the Notification. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, and the Commissioner's order was upheld.