2010 (1) TMI 464 - AT - Central Excise

Solvent - The issue involved in the present case is classification of the various goods, viz., RRS-I N, RRS-II N, etc., which were classified by the appellants under CETH 2710.90 as others . The impugned order has been passed classifying the product under CETH 2710.11 and 2710.13 on the ground that the products manufactured by the appellants fulfilled the requirement of the boiling point range prescribed for these headings in the tariff and the products either by themselves or in admixture with any other substance are suitable for use as fuel in spark ignition engine. Held that - classification rejected under sub-heading 2710.11 and 2710.13, and upheld under sub heading 2710.90.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Classification of goods under CETH 2710.90, duty demand for the period from 26-2-97 to February 2000, imposition of penalty under Section 11AC on the company and an ex-director, non-testing of samples by departmental officers, suitability of products for use in spark ignition engine, misinterpretation of tariff heading by the Commissioner, failure to draw samples for testing over a three-year period, invoking extended period under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:

1. Classification of Goods:
The issue in this case revolves around the classification of goods, specifically RRS-I N, RRS-II N, etc., which were initially classified by the appellants under CETH 2710.90 as "others". The impugned order reclassified the products under CETH 2710.11 and 2710.13 based on the boiling point range and suitability for use as fuel in spark ignition engine. The duty demand of Rs. 4.31,66.014/- was confirmed, and penalties were imposed on both the company and an ex-director.

2. Non-Testing of Samples:
One of the major weaknesses highlighted in the department's case was the non-testing of samples by the departmental officers. Despite the appellants filing classification declarations and claiming classification under CETH 2710.90, no samples were drawn for testing during the manufacturing period. This lack of testing raised doubts about the validity of the reclassification and the suitability of the products for their claimed use.

3. Suitability for Use in Spark Ignition Engine:
The crux of the matter was the suitability of the products for use in spark ignition engines. While the production-in-charge affirmed the products' characteristics met the tariff requirements and were suitable for such use, the appellants argued that the products were sold as solvents, not fuel. The Tribunal emphasized the need for substantial evidence to prove the products' actual, practical, and commercial fitness for the described use, which was lacking in this case.

4. Misinterpretation of Tariff Heading:
The Commissioner's order was criticized for misunderstanding the tariff heading requirements. The order stated that classification should be based on the product's characteristics and properties, disregarding the explicit requirement of suitability for use as fuel in spark ignition engines under the relevant tariff heading. This misinterpretation further weakened the department's case.

5. Failure to Draw Samples for Testing:
The Tribunal highlighted the failure of departmental officers to draw samples and conduct testing over a three-year period, despite the appellants' periodic classification declarations. This failure to follow proper testing procedures and gather evidence within a reasonable timeframe undermined the validity of the duty demand and penalties imposed.

6. Invoking Extended Period under Section 11A:
Given the lack of substantial evidence, misinterpretation of the tariff heading, and failure to draw samples for testing within a reasonable timeframe, the Tribunal concluded that upholding the impugned order was unwarranted. The appeals filed by both the company and the ex-director were allowed, providing consequential relief and setting aside the original order.