2017 (8) TMI 632 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - manufacture of Indian Kattha which is also called as Catechu - classified under Tariff Item No. 14049050 or under Tariff Item No. 13021990 which is a residual entry with a description as others? - Held that - the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax Kanpur Versus M/s Brij Kattha & Kanchan Udyog 2017 (7) TMI 454 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD relied upon wherein this Tribunal had already decided the classification of identical goods under Tariff Item No. 14049050 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods under Tariff Item No. 14049050 or 13021990 - Judicial discipline in decision-making.

Analysis:

1. Classification of goods under Tariff Item No. 14049050 or 13021990:
The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of goods manufactured by the respondent under Tariff Item No. 14049050 or 13021990. The Revenue contended that the goods should be classified under Tariff Item No. 13021990 based on the use of extract from Gambier in addition to Khairwood extract. The Original Authority had initially classified the goods under Tariff Item No. 14049050, dropping the demand for Central Excise duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Original Authority's decision, leading to the Revenue filing an appeal. The respondent argued that the goods should be classified under Tariff Item No. 14049050 based on various grounds, including the commercial parlance test and other evidences. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision regarding a similar issue involving another party, where it was held that the goods were classifiable under Tariff Item No. 14049050. Based on this precedent, the Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

2. Judicial discipline in decision-making:
The Revenue raised a ground of appeal regarding the need for judicial discipline in decision-making, citing a previous case where a different party's classification issue was decided in favor of the Revenue. The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of consistency and judicial discipline in decision-making. However, it relied on the precedent set in a previous case involving a similar issue to maintain uniformity in classification decisions. By dismissing the Revenue's appeal and upholding the Order-in-Appeal, the Tribunal demonstrated adherence to the established classification principles and maintained consistency in its decisions.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issue of classification of goods under specific tariff items and emphasized the importance of judicial discipline in decision-making. By referencing previous decisions and maintaining consistency in classification rulings, the Tribunal provided a comprehensive analysis and upheld the Order-in-Appeal in favor of the respondent.