2018 (7) TMI 1048 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - Absorbent Cotton Wool, Carded Cotton/Non-absorbent Cotton, Handloom Gauze, Handloom Bandages and Bandages, etc. - respondent classified the goods under Chapter 52 & 56 of Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which did not attract any Central Excise duty - It appeared to Revenue that the respondent should have registered with the Central Excise Department since it appeared to them that the goods manufactured by the respondents were classifiable under Chapter 3005 and were attracting Central Excise duty. Held that - Reliance placed in the case of IN RE SHANTI SURGICALS PVT. LTD. 2009 (3) TMI 868 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), KANPUR , where it was held that classification of all the aforementioned products i.e. Absorbent Cotton Wool, Cotton Carded/Non-absorbent Cotton, Handloom bandage cloth, Handloom Gauze Cloth/Gauze under Chapter 30 is not appropriate and legal - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act.
2. Applicability of Central Excise duty.
3. Interpretation of "wholesale package" and "retail package."
4. Classification of Absorbent Cotton Wool as a "drug" or "pharmaceutical product."
5. Judicial discipline and adherence to precedent.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Goods:
The primary issue revolves around the classification of Absorbent Cotton Wool, Carded Cotton/Non-absorbent Cotton, Handloom Gauze, Handloom Bandages, and Bandages under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondents classified these products under Chapter 52 & 56, which did not attract Central Excise duty. However, the Revenue contended that these goods should be classified under Chapter 3005, making them liable for Central Excise duty.

2. Applicability of Central Excise Duty:
The respondents did not register with the Central Excise Department, believing their products were exempt from duty. The Revenue issued Show Cause Notices demanding duty, arguing that the goods fell under Chapter 3005 and were subject to Central Excise duty. The Original Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order, leading to the present appeal by the Revenue.

3. Interpretation of "Wholesale Package" and "Retail Package":
The Commissioner (Appeals) held that goods supplied to hospitals, CGHS, and defense establishments did not constitute wholesale packages. The Revenue disagreed, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in M/s Jayanti Food Processing Pvt. Ltd., which emphasized that packages supplied directly to consumers (e.g., Jet Airways passengers) should be considered retail packages. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not address this precedent, which the Revenue argued was against judicial discipline.

4. Classification of Absorbent Cotton Wool as a "Drug" or "Pharmaceutical Product":
The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that materials for dressing should be sterilized, implying a pharmaceutical nature. The Revenue cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Chamanlal Jagjivandas Sheth vs. State of Maharashtra, which classified absorbent cotton wool, roller bandages, and gauze as drugs under the relevant Act. The Revenue also argued that in common parlance and trade, Absorbent Cotton Wool is regarded as a pharmaceutical product, thus falling under Chapter 30.

5. Judicial Discipline and Adherence to Precedent:
The Revenue argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) ignored the Supreme Court's rulings and other relevant case laws, which is against judicial discipline. They cited multiple cases where similar products were classified under Chapter 30, emphasizing the need to follow established legal principles and precedents.

Judgment:
The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, found that the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the present Order-in-Appeal were consistent with previous rulings, particularly the Order-in-Appeal dated 25/03/2009, which had been upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, affirming the classification and findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, confirming that the goods in question should not attract Central Excise duty under Chapter 3005, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The judgment emphasized the importance of consistency in legal rulings and adherence to judicial precedents.