2016 (12) TMI 87 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of Notification No. 18/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 - classification of goods - footwear - classified under entry 4008.11 or entry 4008.19? - Held that - The matter is covered by Tribunal s decision in appellant s own case 2014 (9) TMI 1074 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI where it was held that insistence on end use certificate is not warranted when there is no such specific statutory requirement. As such, even in the absence of any evidence showing the actual end use of the goods, the same would be classifiable under heading 4008.21, as long as they are of the kind to be used for soles and heels. The goods are classifiable under heading 4008.11 - the appellants are eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 18/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods under tariff entries 4008.11 and 4008.19 for micro cellular rubber sheets used in footwear manufacturing.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by M/s Micro Rubber Industries Pvt. Limited and its Director against an order confirming duty and penalty passed by the Additional Commissioner. The dispute revolved around the classification of micro cellular rubber sheets cleared to outside buyers under tariff entries 4008.11 and 4008.19. The revenue contended that entry 4008.19 applied as there was no evidence of the sheets being used in footwear manufacturing. However, the appellants argued that their goods were used for making heels and soles for footwear, supported by certificates from buyers. They relied on previous tribunal decisions to support their claim.

The Tribunal considered the applicability of Notification No. 18/95-CE, which exempts goods under heading 4008.11 if used in manufacturing soles or heels for footwear. The revenue insisted on evidence of actual use, but the Tribunal referred to a previous case to clarify that the expression "used in the manufacture of" should be interpreted broadly to cover goods intended for the specified purposes. It emphasized that the onus is on the assessee to establish eligibility for the exemption, but strict interpretation should not defeat the purpose of the entry. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's argument that end-use certificates were necessary, stating that such a requirement cannot be imposed without specific statutory backing.

Based on the precedent set by the Tribunal's previous decision and the interpretation of the expression "used in the manufacture of," the Tribunal held that the goods in question were classifiable under heading 4008.11. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants, granting them consequential relief. The judgment was pronounced on 16.11.2016.