2018 (4) TMI 652 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - Sifton and Sifteron - Revenue sought to classify the products under CETH 69.11, attracting 30% of duty - appellant claims that product should be rightly categorised under CETH 3823 during the relevant time, as miscellaneous chemical products , attracting 20% duty - penalty. Held that - The signed notification issued by the Ministry clearly includes CETH 6911 and is clearly covered by Sl. No. 12, attracting 300% of duty. Apparently, the private publication had the placed after the entry 69.11, resulting in such confusion. Penalty set aside - duty liability upheld - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of 'Sifton' and 'Sifteron' under CETH 69.11 or CETH 3823, differential duty demand, penalty imposition under Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing 'miscellaneous chemical products', disputed the classification of 'Sifton' and 'Sifteron' by the Revenue under CETH 69.11, attracting 30% duty. They argued for classification under CETH 3823, attracting 20% duty. The lower authorities upheld the Revenue's classification and imposed a penalty of ?1,15,000 under the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

The consultant for the appellants contended that the dispute over the goods' classification was pending at their sister concern in Pune as well. He highlighted discrepancies in the notification, stating that the printed versions differed, leading to confusion regarding the applicable duty rate. The Revenue, represented by the Authorized Representative, supported the lower authorities' decision, citing the authentic version of the notification from the budget papers of 2010.

Upon reviewing the appeal records and the notification issued after Budget 2010, the Tribunal found that CETH 6911 was included in Sl. No. 12, attracting 30% duty. The confusion arose due to discrepancies in the publication, leading to the erroneous claim for a lower duty rate. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty on the appellants was unjustified, setting it aside while upholding their duty liability as per the lower authorities' orders. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on merits, finding no fault in the lower authorities' decision.

In summary, the Tribunal resolved the classification dispute by upholding the duty liability as per the lower authorities' orders, setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellants due to discrepancies in the notification publication, and dismissing the appeal on merits.