1988 (1) TMI 175 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Proper classification of "Diamond Coat Art Paper" and "Diamond Coat Chrome Paper" u/s Tariff Item 17(1) or 17(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Eligibility for exemption from duty under Notification 63/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982.

Summary:

1. Proper Classification of Products:
The primary issue in this appeal by the Revenue concerns the correct classification of the respondents' products, "Diamond Coat Art Paper" and "Diamond Coat Chrome Paper." The Revenue contends that these should fall under Tariff Item 17(1) as coated printing and writing paper, which would not be eligible for duty exemption under Notification 63/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982. The respondents argue that their products should be classified under Tariff Item 17(2) as converted paper, making them eligible for exemption.

2. Eligibility for Exemption:
The respondents had initially classified their products under Tariff Item 17(1) until the amendment on 28-2-1982. Following the amendment and the issuance of Notification 63/82-C.E., they sought reclassification under Tariff Item 17(2) to avail the exemption. The Assistant Collector rejected this reclassification, maintaining that the products remained printing and writing paper under Tariff Item 17(1). However, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) disagreed, ruling that the products were correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 17(2) and eligible for exemption.

Arguments and Findings:
- Revenue's Argument: The Revenue argued that the products had always been classified under Tariff Item 17(1) and that the amendment did not change the classification criteria. They also noted that the products are converted paper but still insisted on their classification under Tariff Item 17(1).
- Respondents' Argument: The respondents contended that the base paper, already duty-paid under Tariff Item 17(1), underwent further processing, thus falling under Tariff Item 17(2). They argued that the material of coating should not determine the classification and cited several decisions supporting their stance.

Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal noted that the show cause notice was based on the premise that the products were not known in the market as converted paper. However, the Revenue conceded that the products are indeed converted paper. The Tribunal found no substantial evidence to support the Revenue's claim that China Clay coating is not considered coating in the paper industry. It was held that the products, being converted paper, should be classified under Tariff Item 17(2) and are eligible for exemption under Notification 63/82-C.E.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Collector (Appeals)'s decision that the products fall under Tariff Item 17(2) and are exempt from duty under Notification 63/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982. The appeal was found to lack merit, and the order of the Collector (Appeals) was affirmed.