2005 (5) TMI 71 - SC - Central Excise

Benefit of Notification No. 52/86 - whether the Appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 52/86, dated 10th February, 1986 - Held that - As the Appellants had claimed benefit of the Notification, they were issued show cause notices. In reply they claimed that their goods were not impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics and varnish. They claimed that their goods were coated with resins which were not plastic. They contended that resins are a different item from plastic and therefore they were entitled to the benefit of the Notification. Their contention has not been accepted by any of the authorities including CEGAT - Thus, for the purposes of classification and for the purposes of falling under Tariff Item No. 7014, the Appellants themselves have shown their goods to be impregnated, coated, covered and laminated with plastics or varnish. They cannot be allowed to now contend for the purposes of getting benefit of Notification that their goods are not coated with plastic. According to their own classification, their goods are impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics. It is thus clear that they are not entitled to the benefit of the notification. The Tribunal was thus right in so holding - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to benefit of Notification No. 52/86 dated 10th February, 1986.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) regarding the entitlement of the Appellants to the benefit of Notification No. 52/86. The Notification granted duty exemption for goods specified in the Schedule, with Item No. 11 excluding goods impregnated, coated, covered, or laminated with plastics or varnish. The Appellants claimed their goods were not impregnated, coated, covered, or laminated with plastics or varnish, but with resins. However, their claim was rejected by all authorities, including CEGAT.

The Appellants argued that resins are different from plastics, but the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to delve into this distinction. The Court noted that the classification list submitted by the Appellants described their goods as impregnated, coated, covered, or laminated with plastics or varnish for the purpose of classification under Tariff Item No. 7014. Therefore, the Appellants could not now assert that their goods were not coated with plastic to claim the benefit of the Notification. As per their own classification, their goods fell under the category of being impregnated, coated, covered, or laminated with plastics, rendering them ineligible for the exemption under the Notification.

Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of CEGAT, dismissing the appeal and ruling that the Appellants were not entitled to the benefit of the Notification. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, and no costs were awarded in the matter.