9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1992 (1) TMI 241 - AT - Central Excise
Issues: Classification of broken tiles under sub-heading 6906.90 as dutiable, excisability of broken glazed tiles as waste material, applicability of previous tribunal ruling.
In this case, the appellants challenged the order-in-appeal confirming the classification of broken tiles under sub-heading 6906.90 as dutiable by the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, New Delhi. The appellants argued that the broken tiles, arising during the manufacture of glazed tiles, should not be classified as dutiable goods. They contended that these broken tiles are waste material, not intended for sale as tiles, but disposed of to save labor and space. The appellants relied on previous tribunal rulings to support their claim that such waste material is not excisable. The appellants further referenced a specific case, CCE v. M/s. Somany Pilkingtons Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that broken glazed tiles are not excisable. During the hearing, the appellants' advocate emphasized that the issue of dutiability on broken glazed tiles had been previously addressed by the tribunal, citing the aforementioned case as precedent. The Departmental Representative acknowledged the previous decision but reiterated the Collector's findings. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and the previous ruling, noting that the question of excisability is crucial, and tariff entry is secondary once a product is deemed excisable. The Tribunal upheld the precedent, stating that broken glazed tiles are not excisable to duty, emphasizing that the value and marketability of broken tiles differ significantly from intact glazed tiles. The Tribunal highlighted the distinct nature of broken glazed tiles as waste material, not to be equated with prime quality tiles. The ruling emphasized that broken glazed tiles, unlike broken glass, cannot be recycled in the same manner, and their disposal as waste material does not attract excise duty. Consequently, the appeal was allowed based on the precedent, providing relief to the appellants.
|
