9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 1237 - AT - Central ExciseClassification - Whether the brass granules manufactured by the appellant are required to be classified under CETH 74.0-3.21, as claimed by the Revenue or under CETH 74.06 as claimed by the Respondent - Held that - copper predominates by weight and brass granules has to be treated as copper granules on the basis of predominance criteria. It is further observed that CETH 74.07 also pertains to copper bars, rods and profiles but it also covers alloys of copper under CETH 7407.12. Accordingly, non mention of copper alloys or Brass in CETH 74.06 does not mean that it will not contain copper alloys in its ambit - Section note-6 to Section-XV of CETA also confirms this interpretation. Accordingly, this bench does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the first appellate authority regarding classification of brass granules. Classification - Whether the cast form of Copper made by the Respondents should be classified as billets as claimed by the Respondents or the same should be classified as Ingot claimed by the Revenue - whether the chapter notes under Chapter 72 of CETA can be made applicable to Chapter 74 entries - Held that - if the definitions of Ingot & Billet were uniform for all base metal then the same could have been placed as Section notes under Section XV of CETA. As per the above definition given in Indian Standards for copper and copper alloys both Billets & Ingots are products of casting. Billets of Copper & Copper alloys are intended for further working whereas Ingots are primarily for re-melting for production of copper and copper alloys. In the present appeals it is not the case of Revenue that cast products are meant for re-melting. In view of the above definitions given in Indian Standard for Copper and copper alloys will be more appropriate and the definitions of Billets & Ingot given in chapter notes under Chapter 72 of the CETA cannot be applied to interpret entries of Chapter-74, as these notes are not existing as Section notes under Section XV of CETA. In view of the above, we hold that cast articles manufactured by the Respondents for further working are appropriately classified as billets and will be eligible to exemption under Notification No.9/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003, as amended. - Decided against the Revenue
Issues:
1. Classification of brass granules under CETH 74.03.21 or CETH 74.06. 2. Classification of cast form of Copper as 'billets' or 'Ingots'. Analysis: Issue 1 - Classification of Brass Granules: The Revenue argued that the Respondents' Brass Ingots should not be classified under Sr. No.(xxiv) (A)(a) of Notification No.9/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003, as amended. They contended that the products were mis-declared as 'brass/billets weighing up to 5 kg.' The Respondents, on the other hand, claimed that their products should be classified under CETA 74.06. The first appellate authority classified the brass granules under CETA 74.06, considering the predominance of copper by weight over other metals. The bench upheld this classification, stating that the absence of copper alloys or brass in CETA 74.06 does not exclude them, as confirmed by Section note-6 to Section-XV of CETA. Issue 2 - Classification of Cast Copper Form: Regarding the classification of the cast form of Copper, the Revenue argued that the products constituted ingots and were not eligible for small-scale exemption. They relied on the definitions of 'Ingots' & 'Billets' under Chapter-72 of the CETA. The Respondents argued that the definitions of 'Ingot' & 'Billet' in Indian Standards for Copper and Copper Alloys differed from those in Chapter 72 of the CETA. The bench agreed with the Respondents, stating that the definitions of 'Billets' & 'Ingots' under Chapter 72 of the CETA cannot be applied to interpret entries of Chapter-74. They concluded that the cast articles manufactured by the Respondents for further working should be classified as 'billets' and were eligible for exemption under Notification No.9/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the orders passed by the first appellate authority.
|
