9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 582 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - Sterilized Atraumatic needled Sutures - whether classifiable under Chapter heading 9018 or under Chapter heading 3006 of CETA? - benefit of concessional rate of duty - N/N. 10/2006-CE dt. 01/03/2006 - Held that - The Tribunal in appellant own case SUTURES INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE-II 2010 (9) TMI 744 - CESTAT, BANGALORE has held that the goods are rightly classifiable under CETA 9018 and entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of duty under N/N. 10/2006 dt. 01/03/2006 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
Classification of goods under Chapter heading 9018 for concessional rate of duty vs. Chapter heading 3006 for higher duty rate. Analysis: The appellant, a manufacturer of goods falling under Chapter Heading 3006 of the CETA, appealed against the Order-in-Appeal No.115/2009 dated 09/09/2009. The dispute revolved around the classification of "Sterilized Atraumatic needled Sutures" manufactured by the appellant for the period February to December 2007. The appellant claimed the classification of these goods under Chapter heading 9018 to avail the benefit of a concessional rate of duty at 8% as per Notification No.10/2006-CE dated 01/03/2006. However, the Department contended that the goods should be classified under Chapter heading 3006, subjecting them to a duty rate of 16%. A show-cause notice was issued proposing the demand for the differential duty, which was upheld by the original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the present appeal. The appellant's counsel argued that a similar dispute for the period March 2003 to January 2007 was decided in favor of the appellants by the Tribunal in a previous case. The counsel cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a related case and requested the benefit of the earlier decision to be extended to the current dispute. On the other hand, the Department's representative defended the impugned order, highlighting that the Revenue had challenged the earlier Tribunal decision in the Supreme Court. The Department contended that the earlier decision did not consider the end-use aspect for classification and emphasized that the Central Excise Tariff during the previous dispute period was different from the current period. Upon reviewing the submissions and records, the Tribunal found that the dispute had already been considered and decided in favor of the appellant for the earlier period. The Tribunal reiterated that the goods were rightly classifiable under CETA 9018, making them eligible for the concessional rate of duty under Notification No.10/2006 dated 01/03/2006. The Tribunal referenced its earlier decision and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in a related case to support the classification of the goods as surgical appliances falling under Heading 90.18, rather than as mere suturing materials under Chapter 30. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, following its decision for the earlier period. In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis reaffirmed the classification of the appellant's goods under Chapter heading 9018 for the concessional rate of duty, emphasizing the distinction between surgical appliances and suturing materials based on the end-use and the specific characteristics of the products. The decision underscored the relevance of previous rulings and legal interpretations in determining the appropriate classification under the Central Excise Tariff Act, ultimately granting relief to the appellant based on established precedents and legal principles.
|
