9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 450 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - construction chemicals - impugned products are classifiable under Chapter Sub-Heading 3824 40 10 or under Chapter Sub-Heading 3824 90 90 - products are required to be assessed/valued under the provisions of Section 4 or 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944? - HELD THAT - Appellants in their written submissions dated 1.7.2013 have stated that Dr. R. Sundaravadivelu, FNAE, Professor of Department of Ocean Engineering, IIT Madras had certified regarding the characteristics of each product and there is also letter dated 28.6.2013 from Dr. R. Nagendra, Technical Director from Civil-Aid Technoclinic Pvt. Ltd. wherein technical opinion is given in some of the products - Therefore, the adjudicating authority are directed to consider all the test reports/technical opinions placed on record by the appellant along with the opinion given by IIT, Madras before concluding the classification of the above products. Since the valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 depends on the classification of the products, the same may be considered after redetermining the classification based on the technical reports. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of products under different Chapter Headings. 2. Valuation of reclassified products under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Allegations of suppression of facts by the appellant. Summary: Issue 1: Classification of Products The appellants, M/s. Fosroc Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd., are manufacturers of construction chemicals. The Commissioner reclassified their products under different Chapter Headings, which the appellant disputed. The appellant accepted the reclassification for products listed from serial numbers 1 to 13, as there was no change in the rate of duty and no revenue implication. Issue 2: Valuation of Reclassified Products For 14 products (serial numbers 21, 22, 23, 24, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, and 50), the appellant accepted the reclassification but disputed the valuation under Section 4A, arguing that these products are supplied in bulk to industrial consumers, making MRP inapplicable as per Rule 2A of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's valuation under Section 4A, noting that the products were cleared in small packages and not in bulk. For the remaining 27 products (serial numbers 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 46, 51, 52, 53, and 54), the Tribunal found that the Commissioner had decided the classification without proper testing or considering the test reports provided by the appellant. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to consider all test reports and technical opinions before concluding the classification and valuation of these products. Issue 3: Allegations of Suppression The appellants argued that they regularly filed classification lists and returns, and the Department had approved these classifications. Therefore, the question of invoking the proviso to Section 11A for suppression of facts does not arise. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner to re-examine the classification, valuation, and the demand for the extended period, considering the appellant's compliance with filing returns and approved classifications. Findings and Orders: 1. Appeals Nos. E/21481/2014 and E/21712/2014: The Tribunal remanded the matter for re-determining the classification and valuation of the 27 products, and to examine the evidence on suppression and other ingredients to invoke the proviso to Section 11A. 2. Appeal No. E/20158/2019: The demand for 14 products was upheld, and the matter was remanded to re-quantify the demand. For the remaining 27 products, the classification and valuation were to be re-examined. (Order pronounced in Open Court.)
|
