2009 (3) TMI 30 - SC - Central Excise

Nameplate, emblems and logo of plastic whether classifiable under Heading no.87.08 and 87.14 (parts and accessories of motor vehicles) as claimed by assessee or Heading no.39.26 (articles of plastic) as claimed by revenue whether exemption under notification no.15/94 is available assessee relying on decision of SC in the assessee s case in their favour revenue relying on decision of SC in case of N.M. Nagpal (P) Ltd. remitting matter to Tribunal impugned case is remitted to CESTAT

Summary

Issues:
1. Excise classification dispute between the assessee and the Revenue.
2. Exemption claimed for nameplate, emblems, and logo of plastic by the assessee.

Excise Classification Dispute:
The Supreme Court heard two appeals against the CESTAT judgment regarding excise classification and exemption claims. The assessee claimed classification under Heading no.87.08 and 87.14 for parts and accessories of motor vehicles, along with exemption under notification no.15/94. The Revenue argued for classification under Heading no.39.26 for articles of plastic. CESTAT referred to a previous decision and decided in favor of Chapter 39.26 as the correct heading, which was challenged by the assessee in one appeal. The Tribunal also allowed the exemption claim based on a previous decision, which was challenged by the Revenue in another appeal.

Exemption Claim for Nameplate, Emblems, and Logo:
The assessee relied on a previous Supreme Court decision in their favor, stating that plastic name plates are considered "parts and accessories" of motor vehicles and should be classified under Headings 87.08 and 87.14. On the other hand, the Revenue cited a different Supreme Court decision, which led to the matter being remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. Considering the conflicting decisions, the Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the CESTAT to reevaluate in light of both previous judgments.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeals by remitting the matter to the CESTAT for a fresh consideration, taking into account the conflicting decisions referenced in the case.