1995 (7) TMI 174 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of plaster of paris under Central Excise Tariff - Applicability of exemption notifications - Rate of duty for goods cleared before a specific date

In this case, the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, heard an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, regarding the classification of plaster of paris under the Central Excise Tariff. The issue revolved around whether the product should be classified under Heading 2505 as claimed by the appellants or under Heading 3005.90 as claimed by the Department. The appellants argued that their product fell under Heading 2505, excluding products of Chapter 30, while the Department contended that it should be classified under Heading 3005.90, as it was of medicinal grade and not specifically meant for dentistry. The Department supported its argument by stating that the plaster of paris was manufactured according to Indian Pharmacopoeial Standard and was only intended for orthopaedic use, not for dentistry. They also highlighted that the product did not meet the criteria for patent or proprietary medicines under Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 30. Additionally, the Department pointed out that the exemption claimed by the appellants under Notification No. 185/86 was not applicable as it only covered goods under a specific tariff item. Moreover, the Department emphasized that the rate of duty applicable was determined by the date of clearance, citing a precedent set by the Supreme Court in a previous case. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal agreed with the Department's arguments. They noted that the product, being of medicinal grade and solely for orthopaedic use, did not meet the criteria for patent or proprietary medicines under Chapter 30. The Tribunal concluded that the plaster of paris should be classified under Heading 3005.90. Consequently, the benefit of Notification No. 185/86 was deemed inapplicable, and the duty rate was determined based on the date of clearance. Therefore, the appeal was rejected by the Tribunal.