2017 (7) TMI 50 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - Absorbent Cotton Wool, Carded Cotton/Non-Absorbent Cotton, Handloom Gauze, Handloom Bandages & Bandages etc. - The appellant claimed the classification of the said items under Chapter Sub-heading No.5601, 5203 & Chapter 58 whereas Revenue ordered for classification of aforesaid goods under so-called Chapter 3005 - Held that - Id. Commissioner (Appeals) has gone into the details of the case and held that the impugned goods would fall under Chapter Sub-heading No.5601, 5203 & Chapter 58 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of products manufactured by M/s Shanti Surgical Pvt. Ltd.
2. Imposition of personal penalties on directors and general manager.
3. Validity of demands and penalties imposed by Revenue for different periods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Products:
The core issue revolves around the classification of products such as Absorbent Cotton Wool, Carded Cotton/Non-Absorbent Cotton, Handloom Gauze, Handloom Bandages, and Bandages manufactured by M/s Shanti Surgical Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue classified these products under Chapter 3005, while the appellant argued for classification under Chapter Sub-heading 5601, 5203, and Chapter 58. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the specific entry (Chapter 56) should prevail over the general description (Chapter 30), as the products were not coated with pharmaceutical substances and were not put up for retail sale. The Tribunal affirmed this view, emphasizing that specific entries in the tariff should take precedence over general ones, citing the Supreme Court's decision in MOORCO (INDIA) LTD. vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS.

2. Imposition of Personal Penalties:
Personal penalties were imposed on Shri Shanket Kheria, Director, and Shri Subhash Chandra Kheria, General Manager, under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellants challenged these penalties, arguing that the classification adopted by them was based on a specific entry under Chapter 56, which was valid. The Tribunal found merit in their contention and set aside the personal penalties, aligning with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings that the goods were correctly classified under specific entries.

3. Validity of Demands and Penalties:
Several Show Cause Notices were issued for different periods, demanding Central Excise duty and imposing penalties. The Original Authority confirmed these demands and penalties, but the Commissioner (Appeals) provided relief by reclassifying the products under specific headings. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s orders, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. It was reiterated that the specific classification under Chapter 56 should prevail, and the demands and penalties based on the incorrect classification under Chapter 3005 were invalid.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by M/s Shanti Surgical Pvt. Ltd., Shri Shanket Kheria, and Shri Subhash Chandra Kheria, and dismissed the appeals filed by Revenue. The appellants were entitled to consequential relief as per the law. The judgment underscored the principle that specific tariff entries should take precedence over general descriptions, and penalties should not be imposed when the classification adopted by the assessee is valid.