9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of goods as moulds under 8480.79 with benefit of Notification 314/85 or as tools under 8207.90.
Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved a dispute regarding the classification of goods declared as moulds for Foot Bed Forming. The issue was whether these goods should be classified under 8480.79 with the benefit of Notification 314/85, as claimed by the appellants, or as tools under 8207.90. The authorities below had held that the goods were tools and not moulds, as the appellants failed to provide proper catalog support for their claim. The Collector (Appeals) specifically noted the lack of connection between the catalog and the invoice of the goods in question. In defense of the appellants, their Partner argued that the goods were indeed moulds used in manufacturing plastic footwear foot beds. He explained the process where a semi-molten plastic sheet is placed on the moulds, taking shape through gravity, with a plate above acting as a mould die. The Revenue, represented by the ld. DR, reiterated departmental arguments, emphasizing the necessity for the goods to be in a modern form to be considered as dies. During the hearing, the Company's representative referred to an Encyclopedia explaining Cold Forming, a process that changes the shape of a thermoplastic sheet through plastic deformation with the help of dies. The representative demonstrated with a sample in court how the moulds give shape to the plastic sheet to form foot beds for footwear. The technical write-up referred to by the Asstt. Collector described the process of Insole Forming using moulds, further supporting the argument that the goods in question were indeed moulds. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence presented, including the Encyclopedia reference and the sample displayed in court, concluded that the goods should be classified as moulds under Chapter 8480.79. Therefore, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification 314/85. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
|
