9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (4) TMI 76 - SC - Central ExciseConveyor belts impregnated with plastic - Departmental clarifications - Held that - There was no occasion for the Revenue or the Tribunal to have applied the decision in Fenoplast P. Ltd. (1994 (6) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) by inference when there were specific decisions of not only the Tribunal but of this Court as well in respect of the commodity in question. Besides the trade notice was binding on the Revenue. It was not contrary to any decision of this Court but in keeping with the decision of this Court in Multiple Fabrics Co. (P) Ltd. 1987 (4) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Taking into consideration the earlier decision as well as the Trade Notice issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, we are of the view that the Tribunal erred in upholding the Revenue's demand. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed. However, we make it clear that while quashing the demand of the respondent for the period in question the appellant will not proceed with its claim for refund in respect of the earlier period on the ground that it may have paid excise duty on conveyor belts under Tariff Item 19(III) - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Classification of conveyor belts under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 2. Interpretation of Tariff Items 19(III) and 68. 3. Relevance and binding nature of tariff advice issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. 4. Application of previous court decisions in classifying similar products. 5. Consideration of trade notices in excise duty matters. Analysis: The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision upholding the excise duty demand for the period 1-5-81 to 28-2-86, arguing that the conveyor belts were wrongly classified under Tariff Item 19(III) instead of Tariff Item 68. The appellant contended that the conveyor belts were manufactured with synthetic plastic and, therefore, not covered by Tariff Item 19(III). Both the Tribunal and the Court had previously held that the conveyor belts in question were not classifiable under Tariff Item 68. The appellant also relied on a tariff advice issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which classified the item under Tariff Item 68, emphasizing its binding nature on the Revenue as per previous court decisions. The respondent, however, argued that the method indicated in a previous court decision should be applied for classification, placing the commodity under Tariff Item 19(III). The respondent contended that the Tariff Advice was issued before the introduction of Section 37(B) in the Act and, therefore, would not bind the Revenue if contrary to the decision in a specific case related to PVC impregnated fabrics. The Court rejected the respondent's submission, stating that there were specific decisions from both the Tribunal and the Court regarding the classification of the commodity. The Court emphasized that the trade notice was binding on the Revenue and in line with previous court decisions. Considering the earlier decisions and the trade notice, the Court held that the Tribunal erred in upholding the Revenue's demand. The appeals were allowed, quashing the demand for the period in question, with a clarification that the appellant would not proceed with a refund claim for the earlier period based on excise duty paid under Tariff Item 19(III). No costs were awarded in the judgment.
|
