Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1993 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1993 (8) TMI 186 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Classification of imported papers under specific tariff headings and eligibility for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 55/86. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Classification of Imported Papers The appellants imported 'Baryata Coated Base Paper Single Weight' and 'Documents Raw Base Paper' classified under Tariff Heading 4810.11 and 4805.40, respectively. They claimed that 'Baryata Coated Base Paper' and 'Uncoated Document Base Paper' should be classified under different headings and eligible for concessional duty under Notification No. 55/86. The Assistant Collector rejected the claims, stating that the papers were not 'Printing and Writing Paper.' The appeal was also rejected by the Collector (Appeals). Issue 2: Eligibility for Concessional Duty The appellants argued that a previous Tribunal decision favored their claim that 'Document Raw Base Paper' was usable for printing and writing, thus eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 55/86. The respondent contended that the imported paper was not being used for printing and writing purposes, as acknowledged by the Collector (Appeals). The respondent also referred to a test report indicating the weight range of the imported paper. Issue 3: Interpretation of Notification No. 55/86 The Tribunal examined whether the 'Document Raw Base Paper' qualified as 'Printing and Writing Paper' under Notification No. 55/86. The notification specified criteria for exemption based on the weight of the paper and its classification. The Tribunal noted that the Collector (Appeals) had relied on Harmonised System Notes to determine the eligibility of the paper, which the appellants disputed. Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the 'Document Raw Base Paper' did not meet the criteria to be considered 'Printing and Writing Paper' as per the notification. The Tribunal referred the matter to a larger bench due to a conflicting decision in a previous case. The analysis emphasized the importance of common trade parlance and legal interpretation in determining the eligibility for duty exemptions under specific tariff headings and notifications.
|