1984 (10) TMI 138 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under Central Excise Tariff - Applicability of countervailing duty - Proper assessment under Item 8 or Item 68 CET - Challenge to test results and classification

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, four Revision applications were filed by two companies challenging the recovery of countervailing duty on imported liquid paraffin USP grade. The issue revolved around the correct classification of the goods under the Central Excise Tariff. The Appellants argued that the goods should be assessed under Item 68 CET instead of Item 11(A) CET, as they were of USP grade and not liable for additional Customs duty. The Assistant Collector initially classified the goods under Item 8 CET, which was challenged by the Appellants, leading to appeals before the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay. The Appellate Collector rejected the appeals, prompting the Appellants to file Revision Applications before the Government of India, subsequently transferred to the Tribunal.

The Appellants contended that the imported goods conformed to USP tests and should be assessed under Item 68 CET, supported by manufacturer literature and test certificates. The Department argued based on test results showing viscosity below 100 seconds at 100^0F, classifying the goods under Item 8 CET. The Tribunal analyzed the classification criteria under Item 8 CET, emphasizing the need for specific test reports to justify the classification. The Tribunal found that the Department failed to provide such reports, leading to a classification change without basis. Relying on previous decisions and manufacturer evidence, the Tribunal held that the goods were classifiable under Item 68 CET, exempt from additional Customs duty.

In a separate opinion, another Member of the Tribunal disagreed with the classification under Item 68 CET, emphasizing the importance of Customs Laboratory test results over supplier literature. The Member highlighted the Appellants' failure to contest test results or seek re-testing, indicating reliance on Customs test results for accurate classification. Additionally, the Member noted the branded nature of the goods, suggesting classification under a different item of the Central Excise Tariff. Ultimately, this dissenting opinion upheld the original classification under Item 8 CET based on Customs test results, rejecting the appeals.

The judgment delved into the significance of test results, the burden of proof on classification, and the relevance of manufacturer literature in determining the proper assessment under the Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal's decision to classify the goods under Item 68 CET, exempting them from additional Customs duty, highlighted the importance of accurate classification based on test reports and manufacturer evidence. The dissenting opinion underscored the reliance on Customs test results for classification accuracy, emphasizing the need for contestation or re-testing if doubts arise.