2005 (11) TMI 139 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of excisable goods under various chapter headings; Process of manufacture for different products; Entitlement for exemption under Notification No. 18/95-CE.

Classification of excisable goods: The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, filed a classification declaration for products under different chapter headings. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the classification, determining Rustopaper and related products under specific sub-headings like 4811.90, 5911.90, and 4819.90. The Tribunal observed that processes like coating or lamination on duty paid paper result in new products, thus classifying them under appropriate headings. The appellant's argument for exemption under Notification No. 18/95-CE was rejected as the notification covered different types of paper products not applicable to the appellant's goods.

Process of manufacture: The appellant contended that no significant process of manufacture occurred for certain products, as they involved buying chemicals, diluting, and selling them under a brand name. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the processes undertaken by the appellant on chemicals constituted manufacturing activities. The resultant products were classified under different chapter headings/sub-headings based on the process undertaken by the appellant after procuring duty paid chemicals.

Entitlement for exemption under Notification No. 18/95-CE: The appellant's claim for exemption under specific serial numbers of the notification was refuted by the Tribunal, as the products in question did not align with the categories exempted under the said notification. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing the process of manufacture and the correct classification of goods under different tariff headings. Ultimately, the appeal was rejected, affirming the original classification and denying the appellant's claim for exemption under the mentioned notification.