2008 (9) TMI 132 - AT - Central Excise

Scrabble Dice is also a word game similar to the conventional Scrabble Original but with an added dice section, and, therefore, falls for classification under CET sub-heading 9504.90 Scrabble Junior with an added printed word side to the board, is also classifiable u/sh 9504.90 of CET- applicants are seeking to have the classification issue reviewed in the guise of rectification application which is not permissible as the Tribunal has no power to review its own order

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of products - Scrabble Deluxe/ Original/ Classic/ Regular, Scrabble Junior, and Scrabble Dice.
2. Application of precedent - M/s. Funskool India Ltd. v. CCE, Goa.
3. Plea of bona fide belief regarding duty exemption.
4. Penalty under Section 11AC applicability.
5. Re-computation of duty liability based on cum-duty price.

Classification of Products:
The Tribunal noted that the classification of 'Scrabble Junior' and 'Scrabble Dice' was not determined previously. It was established that 'Scrabble Junior' is similar to 'Scrabble Original' but designed for children, thus classified under CET sub-heading 9504.90. Similarly, 'Scrabble Dice' was deemed a word game akin to 'Scrabble Original' and classified under the same sub-heading.

Application of Precedent - M/s. Funskool India Ltd. v. CCE, Goa:
The Tribunal rejected the plea to follow the decision in M/s. Funskool India Ltd. case for classifying the disputed products under Chapter Heading 95.03. It emphasized that the Tribunal lacked the authority to review its own order, dismissing the rectification application seeking a classification review.

Plea of Bona Fide Belief Regarding Duty Exemption:
While acknowledging the absence of a clarification sought by the assesses regarding duty exemption for 'Scrabble,' the Tribunal maintained that the extended limitation period was applicable due to the assessees' failure to disclose crucial information, such as the name of the game 'Scrabble.'

Penalty Under Section 11AC Applicability:
The Tribunal agreed with the applicants that upholding the penalty under Section 11AC for the entire disputed period was erroneous. It clarified that the penalty could only be imposed from the date of the provision's introduction, thus directing the re-computation of the penalty amount by the Commissioner.

Re-computation of Duty Liability Based on Cum-Duty Price:
The Tribunal dismissed the request to rework the duty liability based on cum-duty price, noting that such a submission was not raised during the proceedings. Consequently, no error was found in not addressing a plea that was not brought before the Bench.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the application, emphasizing the correct classification of the products, the limitations on reviewing previous orders, the implications of the plea of bona fide belief, the correct application of penalties under Section 11AC, and the necessity for raising all relevant submissions during the proceedings.