2023 (6) TMI 96 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - unprocessed Embroidered Fabrics - to be classifiable under 58.05 or it would be classifiable under the Chapters under which base fabrics belong to such as Chapters 52 54 55 or 60? - applicability of N/N. 106/95 8/96-CE (Ref. No.58.10) 6/2000-CE (Sr.No.156) 3/2001-CE (Sr.No.159). HELD THAT - The issue involved in the present case in the case of appellant has been considered by this tribunal in order no. A/88051- 88052/17/EB and the matter remanded back to the original authority for de novo consideration. In the remand proceedings issue is still pending. As the issue involved in the present case is also the same. These matters be also remanded to original authority for de novo consideration along with the matter remanded via the earlier order. Since the issue involved in present appeal is identical the appeal allowed by way of remand to the original authority following the earlier president decision.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the challenge case are whether unprocessed Embroidered Fabrics after undergoing specific processes remain classifiable under a particular heading, and whether duty is payable on these processes when exempt under various Notifications.

Issue 1: Classification of Embroidered Fabrics
The main issue revolved around determining the classification of unprocessed Embroidered Fabrics after undergoing processes like bleaching, dyeing, and printing. The question was whether these fabrics should continue to be classified under Heading 58.05 or under the Chapters to which the base fabrics belong. The Appellant argued for a specific classification based on the nature of the processes involved.

Issue 2: Duty Payment on Exempt Processes
Another issue was whether duty payment is required on processes applied to embroidered fabrics that are otherwise exempt from duty under various Notifications. The Appellant sought clarification on the duty implications of such processes when the fabrics are exempt under specific Notifications.

The tribunal heard arguments from both parties, where the Appellant's counsel referenced a previous order remanding a similar issue back to the original authority for reconsideration. The Appellant requested a similar remand for the present case due to the similarity in issues.

The Authorized Representative for the Respondent acknowledged the similarity of the issue in the present appeal with a previous case that was remanded for reconsideration. The tribunal reviewed the Impugned order and the submissions made during the appeal proceedings.

The tribunal also examined an order from the Appellant's previous case, highlighting the issue of classification and entitlement to exemption under specific Notifications. The tribunal emphasized the need for verifying specific facts related to the processes involved, as seen in previous cases remanded by higher authorities.

Given the identical nature of the issue in the present appeal, the tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding it to the original authority for further consideration, following precedents from previous decisions. The adjudicating authority was instructed to address the issues within three months from the date of the order in the remand proceedings.

The judgment was pronounced in the open court, emphasizing the decision to remand the appeal for further consideration based on the issues discussed and the precedents cited during the proceedings.