2018 (6) TMI 738 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of Mistake - remand proceedings - case of applicant is that this Tribunal remanded the matter to arrive at the correct classification under Chapter 54 and 55 - Held that - Tribunal after considering all the records, found that the issue in dispute can be resolved only after arriving at correct classification. The adjudicating authority classified the goods under Chapter 59.07 which was not agreed upon by this Tribunal, therefore adjudicating authority was directed to decide correct classification. The applicant cannot say now that remand for reconsideration of classification is wrong. ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in classification under Chapter 54 and 55 - Consideration of correct classification even without being the subject matter of show cause notice - Error in holding that Adjudicating Authority did not consider classification under Chapter 52 or 54 - Direction to examine classification - Interpretation of Precision Rubber Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai 2016 (334) ELT 577 (SC).

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application for rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's order dated 7.7.2017 regarding the correct classification under Chapter 54 and 55. The appellant's counsel argued that the Tribunal remanded the matter for the correct classification, even though it was not the subject matter of the show cause notice, citing judicial precedents. The adjudication order stated that the products were not classifiable under Chapters 54 or 55, and the department did not challenge this order, leading to an error in not considering classification under Chapter 52 or 54. The appellant also referenced a case to support their argument against the direction to examine classification, which was deemed contrary to Precision Rubber Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai 2016 (334) ELT 577 (SC).

Upon reviewing the submissions and records, the Tribunal found that the issue could only be resolved by determining the correct classification. The adjudicating authority had classified the goods under Chapter 59.07, which the Tribunal disagreed with, leading to a direction for the correct classification. The appellant's grounds of appeal highlighted the classification dispute, emphasizing that the goods should be classified under Chapter 54 or 55 based on specific criteria regarding fabrics bearing designs. The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting that the judgment cited by the appellant was not presented during arguments and that classification reconsideration at a later stage was common in legal practice, thereby finding no apparent error in the record.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the direction for correct classification under Chapters 54 and 55, emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant factors, including the presence of designs on fabrics, in determining the appropriate classification. The dismissal of the application was based on the lack of a clear error on record and the absence of new legal arguments that would warrant a different decision.