2018 (11) TMI 1020 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - coated paper of three varieties i.e. Coated Front, Coated Back and Coated front and back sides - Initially, the appellant themselves classified the product under 4809 but had subsequently revised the classification under CETH 4810 - whether the paper manufactured by the appellant is to be classified as self copy paper under CETH 4809 or as a coated paper under CETH 4810? Held that - A plain reading of CETH 4809 only indicates that it should be capable of making copies and it can be either in the form of rolls or sheets and it can be printed or otherwise. In this case, the paper in question is not printed and it is sold in rolls or sheets. The essential characteristics of the self copy paper are present in the paper in the form it is removed from the factory gate; simply because it is not printed or the papers are not made into appropriate sets, self copying paper does not cease to be so. On the other hand, CETH 4810 deals with the paper coated with kaolin which is also one of the materials used for coating in this product but the description of this CETH would indicate that it covers other forms of paper such as art paper, chrome paper, imitation art paper, insulating paper, kraft paper etc. There is no entry corresponding to paper which makes copies or imprints in this heading. CETH 4809 is a more specific entry for the product in question and therefore the appellant s product has been correctly classified by Revenue under CETH 4809. Penalty - Held that - Since a classification dispute is involved, we do not find sufficient grounds to allege malafide and to impose penalty upon the appellant - penalty set aside. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the manufactured paper under the correct Central Excise Tariff Head (CETH).
2. Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 read with Section 11 AC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of the Manufactured Paper:

The appellant, a manufacturer of coated paper, disputed the classification of their product under Central Excise Tariff. Initially, they classified their paper under CETH 4809 as self-copying paper but later revised it to CETH 4810, claiming it was more specific. Revenue disagreed, demanding differential duty, leading to the appellant's appeal.

The appellant's counsel explained the manufacturing process, stating that the paper, coated with mixtures including Kaolin and other chemicals, was used by customers to make bill books, receipt books, etc. He argued that their product should be classified under CETH 4810 because it meets the criteria of being coated with kaolin and other substances. He further contended that the paper does not produce an imprint unless used in specific sets, thus not fitting the definition of self-copying paper under CETH 4809.

Revenue countered that the paper, regardless of how it is used by customers, fits the description of self-copying paper under CETH 4809. They argued that the paper has the essential characteristics of self-copying paper and thus should be classified as such.

The tribunal examined both arguments and the relevant CETH descriptions. They noted that CETH 4809 covers self-copying paper capable of making copies, whether printed or not, and in rolls or sheets. They found that the appellant's paper possessed the essential characteristics of self-copying paper, even if not in final form. CETH 4810, on the other hand, covers other types of coated paper like art paper, which does not include self-copying paper.

The tribunal concluded that CETH 4809 is the more specific entry for the appellant's product, thus upholding Revenue's classification.

2. Imposition of Penalty:

The appellant argued against the imposition of penalty, claiming there was no malafide intent in their classification change. The tribunal agreed, noting that the classification dispute provided reasonable grounds for the appellant's actions. They found no sufficient grounds to allege malafide intent and thus set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 25 read with Section 11 AC.

Conclusion:

The tribunal upheld the classification of the appellant's product under CETH 4809, confirming the demand for duty and interest. However, they set aside the penalty imposed, recognizing the reasonable grounds for the classification dispute. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.