2006 (3) TMI 169 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of cotton canvas fabrics under the Central Excise Tariff Act.
2. Validity and impact of Board Circular No. 48-2-97-CX dated 17-4-1997.
3. Reliance on Harmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN) for classification.
4. Impact of judicial precedents on classification.
5. Binding nature of administrative orders under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Cotton Canvas Fabrics:
The petitioner manufactures cotton canvas fabrics, which were initially classified under Chapter 52 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. However, a fresh show cause notice issued on 20-9-1990 proposed re-classification under Chapter 59, asserting these fabrics were used for industrial purposes. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed this re-classification and the differential duty demand by Order No. 52/92 dated 20-8-1992. The Board's Circular dated 10-8-1988 initially classified the goods under Chapter 52, but subsequent orders and circulars, including the impugned Circular dated 17-4-1997, sought to revise this classification to Chapter 59.

2. Validity and Impact of Board Circular No. 48-2-97-CX dated 17-4-1997:
The impugned Circular under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act aimed to ensure uniformity in classification. It specified that grey cotton tyre cord fabrics, grey bolting cloth, grey filter cloth/straining cloth, grey belting cloth, and belting duck with technical uses should be classified under heading 59.11, while grey cotton canvas and grey cotton duck not having technical uses should be classified under Chapter 52. The petitioner contested this re-classification, arguing there was no justification for changing the classification previously established.

3. Reliance on Harmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN) for Classification:
The Department relied on Section XI of the HSN, which states that woven fabrics falling under Chapter 52 do not include fabrics for technical uses classified under heading 59.11. The Board's position was that the end use of the fabrics was a relevant criterion for classification, thus justifying the re-classification under Chapter 59 based on "technical uses."

4. Impact of Judicial Precedents on Classification:
The petitioner cited several judicial precedents, including the Tribunal's decision in Jyoti Overseas Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore (2001), which considered similar classification issues. The Tribunal in Jyoti Overseas Ltd. overruled the earlier decision in Simplex Mills-I, which had classified grey cotton canvas and other fabrics under Chapter 59. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in Jyoti Overseas Ltd., confirming that the correct classification for these fabrics was under Chapter 52, not Chapter 59. The Supreme Court's decision emphasized that unprocessed fabrics in running lengths could not be classified under heading 59.11.

5. Binding Nature of Administrative Orders under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act:
Administrative orders or instructions under Section 37B are intended to achieve uniformity in classification and levy of excise duty. However, the Board's re-classification in the impugned Circular was based on the earlier Tribunal decision in Simplex Mills-I, which had been overruled by the Larger Bench in Jyoti Overseas Ltd. and confirmed by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the judicial pronouncements take precedence, and the impugned Circular cannot override these decisions.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the impugned Circular dated 17-4-1997, ruling that the classification of the goods manufactured by the petitioner should remain under Chapter 52, as established by the judicial precedents. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned Circular was deemed not binding on the assessee, reaffirming the primacy of judicial decisions over administrative orders in matters of classification.