1997 (12) TMI 219 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of product under different headings, interpretation of Chapter notes, financial hardship claim, change in classification stands

Classification of product under different headings:
The case involves a dispute regarding the classification of Clearasil Daily Soap Wash (CDSW) manufactured by the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the classification of CDSW under Heading 3304, rejecting the petitioner's claim for classification under Heading 3401. The petitioners initially classified the product under Heading 3402.00 by mistake but later corrected it to Heading 3401.10. The Assistant Commissioner ultimately classified the product under Heading 3304.00, leading to the current appeal.

Interpretation of Chapter notes:
The appellants argued that their product should be classified under Heading 3401.10 as it is commonly understood as soap and falls under the specific entry for soap in Chapter 34. They contended that even though the product is advertised for acne treatment, it is fundamentally a soap and should not be classified under Heading 3404.00. They highlighted Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 34, which clarifies that soap with added substances like disinfectants or medicaments falls under Heading 3404, but since their product is primarily a soap, it should be classified under Heading 3401.10.

Financial hardship claim:
The appellants did not plead financial hardship, which was noted by the authorities. The learned DR opposed the prayer for stay on this basis.

Change in classification stands:
Both the appellants and the department changed their classification stands during the proceedings. Initially, the classification was under Heading 3402.00, which was later changed to 3303.00. The appellants offered to provide a bank guarantee to secure the interest of Revenue if directed.

Decision:
The Tribunal observed that a detailed examination of the case would be more appropriate during the main appeal hearing. While the appellants did not demonstrate a strong prima facie case or financial hardship, considering the changing stands of both parties, the Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit Rs. 15 lakhs. Upon such deposit, the pre-deposit of the balance amount would be stayed during the appeal's pendency. The appellants were given 8 weeks to comply, failing which their appeal would be liable for dismissal without further notice. The appellants were granted the liberty to pay the amount through adjustment in RG 23A subject to availability and to pay the balance in cash or through payment in PLA.