1998 (1) TMI 71 - SC - Central Excise

Whether tanks and vats manufactured by the assessee would be classified under sub-heading 3926.90 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 as other articles of plastics and not under Heading 39.25 and sub-heading 3925.10 as builders ware of plastics? Held that - It is true that since both the appeals of the respondent were allowed by the Tribunal on the ground that the goods manufactured by the respondent are classifiable under sub-heading 3926.90 there was no occasion for the Tribunal to deal with the question of extended period of limitation. Under such circumstances we feel that this question requires to be considered by the Tribunal. Set aside the orders of the Tribunal and remit the appeals to the Tribunal for deciding the question relating to application of proviso to Section 11A of the Act in the present case. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Application of extended period of limitation.

In this case, the main issue was the classification of goods manufactured by the respondent under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondent contended that their tanks and vats should be classified under sub-heading 3926.90 as "other articles of plastics" and not under Heading 39.25 as "builders ware of plastics." The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal allowed the respondent's appeals, holding that the goods fell under sub-heading 3926.90. The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant headings and sub-headings of the Act and determined that the tanks and vats manufactured by the respondent should be classified as "builders ware of plastics" under Heading 39.25, disagreeing with the Tribunal's classification. The Court emphasized the relationship of the goods with the description under the disputed headings and concluded that the tanks and vats were akin to the goods described under Heading 39.25, thus attracting excise duty.

Another issue raised was the application of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Act. Since the Tribunal had not addressed this issue due to its decision on the classification of goods, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Tribunal to consider the question of the extended period of limitation. The Court set aside the Tribunal's orders and directed a reconsideration of this aspect. The appeals were allowed, and there was no order as to costs.