2016 (8) TMI 118 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - coated paperboard, coated on one side with China clay and the same - classifiable under tariff sub heading no. 4810.10 or tariff subheading no. 4802.10 - Held that - the goods cleared by the respondent are un-coated paperboard sheet/paperboard. In that circumstances, we hold that the respondent has correctly classified the goods under Central Excise Tariff sub heading 4802.10 - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of goods under tariff subheadings 4802.10 and 4810.10.
2. Allegation of clearing coated paperboard.
3. Examination of test reports by the adjudicating authority.
4. Dispute regarding the classification of goods supplied to specific departments.
5. Failure to provide test reports to the appellant.
6. Correct classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis:
1. The case revolves around the classification of goods under tariff subheadings 4802.10 and 4810.10. The respondent was found clearing finished goods under different subheadings, leading to a demand for duty by the revenue. The respondent argued that the goods were correctly classified under 4802.10 based on end use and test reports from the chemical examiner, while the revenue contended that the goods should be classified under 4810.10 due to being coated paperboard.

2. The main issue was whether the respondent was clearing coated paperboard, as alleged by the revenue. The chemical examiner's test reports confirmed that the goods were uncoated paperboard, contradicting the revenue's claim. The adjudicating authority failed to consider these test reports, which were crucial in determining the correct classification of the goods.

3. The adjudicating authority examined the issue in detail and found no evidence of the appellant supplying coated paper to the specified departments. The purchase orders from the departments did not mention coated paper, and the test reports supported the classification under subheading 4802.10 for educational text book printing. The failure to provide test reports to the appellant was noted, and based on the available evidence, the demand for duty was set aside.

4. The judgment emphasized the importance of test reports in determining the classification of goods. The appellant's classification under subheading 4802.10 was upheld based on the conclusive test reports indicating uncoated paperboard. The tribunal found no fault in the appellant's classification and dismissed the revenue's appeal, highlighting the significance of factual evidence in such disputes.

5. In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the appellant's classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff subheading 4802.10, emphasizing the importance of test reports and factual evidence in determining the correct classification for duty purposes. The judgment highlighted the need for thorough examination of evidence and proper consideration of test reports in such cases to avoid incorrect classification and undue demands for duty.