2018 (3) TMI 916 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - Organic Composite Solvents - It appeared to Revenue that since Naphtha was used as input the final product emerged should be classified as Motor Spirit under Tariff Item No. 27101111 - to be classified under CETH 38140010 or under CETH 27101111? - Held that - Learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that there were no grounds to classify the said goods manufactured by respondent as Motor Spirit - There is no ground which has contested finding by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) - goods to be classified under CETH 38140010 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods - Organic Composite Solvents under Tariff Item No.38140010 or Motor Spirit under Tariff Item No.27101111

In this case, the appeal filed by the Revenue challenges the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the classification of goods manufactured by the respondents. The respondents were producing Organic Composite Solvents and classifying them under Tariff Item No.38140010. The Revenue argued that since Naphtha was used as an input, the final product should be classified as Motor Spirit under Tariff Item No.27101111. The Commissioner (Appeals) based his decision on a chemical examiner's report and the introduction of the 8-digit Tariff system. The Commissioner found that the goods manufactured by the respondents should not be classified as Motor Spirit, citing a Supreme Court decision in a similar case. The Revenue, dissatisfied with this decision, appealed to the Tribunal.

Upon hearing the arguments presented by the Learned A.R. for the Revenue and reviewing the records, the Tribunal observed that the grounds of appeal were merely a repetition of the Revenue's contentions in the show cause notice. The Tribunal noted that none of the grounds contested the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and dismissed it. The Tribunal also stated that the respondent would be entitled to consequential relief as per the law.