2005 (4) TMI 67 - SC - Central Excise

Whether the product is classifiable under Tariff Item No. 48.18 or under Tariff Item No. 56.01? Held that - with each classification list a statement had been annexed showing the manufacturing process. In the manufacturing process it has been clearly mentioned that rayon grade wood pulp was being used. Thus, the material used was disclosed by the party. It is on the basis of use of this material that the Collector (Appeals) holds that the product would be classifiable under Tariff Item No. 48.18. Thus, all necessary material was available to the Department. There is no new material which has been discovered by the Department. In these circumstances, in our view, the adjudicating order as well as the order of CEGAT holding that the extended period is available cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. The demands for duty and penalty for the extended period of limitation is therefore set aside. We, however, clarify that the notices which are within time are upheld.

Summary

Issues: Classification of products under Tariff Item No. 48.18 or 56.01, Concessions made by the Counsel, Extended period of limitation for demand of duty, Disclosure of material used in the product.

Classification Issue:
The case involved the classification of sanitary towels under Tariff Item No. 48.18 or 56.01. The Collector (Appeals) determined that the products were rightly classifiable under Tariff Heading No. 48.18 as they were made out of wood pulp, not textile material. The Tribunal upheld this classification based on admitted facts and the absence of contrary evidence. The Appellants had not challenged this classification and had even made concessions regarding it at different stages of the legal process. The Court affirmed the classification under Tariff Item No. 48.18, emphasizing that the concession was made on facts, not a legal question.

Concessions by Counsel:
The Appellants' Counsel had made concessions during the legal proceedings, stating that the products were similar to those of another company already classified under Tariff Item No. 48.18. The Court noted that the concessions were made with instructions from the client and were not made without authorization. The Appellants were not allowed to withdraw from these concessions, and the Court did not consider the matter of classification on merits due to the concessions made by the Counsel.

Extended Period of Limitation:
Regarding the extended period of limitation for the demand of duty, the Court found that the party had disclosed the composition of their product, including the use of "rayon grade wood pulp," in their classification lists. The Court held that all necessary material was available to the Department, and there was no new material discovered. Consequently, the adjudicating order and the order of CEGAT upholding the extended period were set aside, and the demands for duty and penalty for the extended period were annulled.

Disclosure of Material Used:
The Court emphasized that the material used in the products had been disclosed by the party in their classification lists, including the manufacturing process involving "rayon grade wood pulp." As the material used was clearly stated in the documentation submitted, the Court concluded that the Department had all necessary information available to them, and there was no basis for upholding the extended period of limitation for the demand of duty and penalty.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the classification of the products under Tariff Item No. 48.18, affirmed the concessions made by the Counsel, annulled the demands for duty and penalty for the extended period of limitation, and clarified that the notices within the time limit were upheld. The Appeals were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.