9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (3) TMI 163 - AT - Central ExciseConcessional rate of duty - Building Block - Paver Blocks and other articles falling under Heading 6810 - Notification No. 10/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003 held that - that the paver blocks in question, used for paving roads, footpaths, parking areas, and other open spaces like courtyards of buildings, should be classified as building blocks under SH 6810 11 90, which entry is specific enough to cover building blocks . Therefore, there is no question of classifying paver blocks under the residuary entry (SH 6810 99 90) suggested by the Revenue - , the assessees are entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of duty under the relevant Notifications
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Paver Blocks. 2. Entitlement to Concessional Rate of Duty under Notifications No. 10/2003-C.E. and 10/2006-C.E. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of Paver Blocks: The primary issue in both appeals was the classification of paver blocks. The respondents classified their paver blocks under sub-heading 6810 11 90, claiming them as 'building blocks,' whereas the Revenue proposed their classification under sub-heading 6810 99 90, which would exclude them from the category of 'building blocks' and deny the benefit of the concessional rate of duty. The Revenue argued that 'building blocks' should be understood as blocks used for erecting vertical structures. They contended that paver blocks, used for paving open areas like footpaths, parking spaces, and roads, could not be considered 'building blocks.' The argument was supported by references to IS 15658:2006, which defines 'paver blocks' as units used in the surface course of pavements. The Revenue also cited the Tribunal's decision in Perfect Sealing Systems Private Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune, to emphasize classification based on predominant use. Conversely, the respondents argued that 'building blocks' should be interpreted in its popular meaning, understood by the trade as blocks used in construction activities, including paving. They opposed the reliance on IS specifications, citing Supreme Court judgments in Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Union of India and Collector of Central Excise v. Wood Craft Products Ltd., which held that IS specifications should not be used for classification of excisable goods. They also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Dunlop India Ltd. and Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. v. Union of India & Others, which stated that classification should not be based on end-use unless specified in the Tariff or Notifications. Upon consideration, the Tribunal noted that IS specifications are meant for quality control and not for classification. They also observed that the term 'building' used to qualify 'blocks' under SH 6810 11 was not defined in the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Tribunal emphasized the common parlance understanding, where 'building blocks' are materials used for building structures, not limited to vertical structures. Thus, they concluded that paver blocks should be classified as 'building blocks' under SH 6810 11 90. 2. Entitlement to Concessional Rate of Duty: Given the classification of paver blocks as 'building blocks' under SH 6810 11 90, the respondents were entitled to the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 10/2003-C.E. and subsequently under Notification No. 10/2006-C.E. The Tribunal held that the benefit of the concessional rate continued to be available for 'solid or hollow building blocks including aerated or cellular light weight concrete blocks and slabs' falling under Chapter 68, excluding specific headings. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the lower appellate authority's decision that the respondents were entitled to the concessional rate of duty. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that paver blocks should be classified as 'building blocks' under SH 6810 11 90, thereby entitling the respondents to the benefit of concessional rate of duty under the relevant notifications. The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed.
|
