1998 (2) TMI 247 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of Printed Polyethylene Film under Heading 49.01 or 3920.32.
Interpretation of Section Note 2 to Section VII for classification.
Relevance of previous tribunal judgments on similar classification disputes.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal concerned the classification of Printed Polyethylene Film under Heading 49.01 or 3920.32. The Department contended that Section Note 2 was crucial in determining the appropriate classification. The Assistant Collector had approved the classification under Heading 49.01, leading to the Department's appeal against the Collector (Appeals) order rejecting their appeal.

The Departmental Representative argued that Section Note 2 to Section VII was significant in deciding whether the item should be classified under Chapter 39 or Chapter 49. The Department's position was that the classification should be under Heading 3920.32, not Chapter 49. The Collector had acknowledged that if a plastic film undergoes printing, it does not amount to further manufacture as both plain and printed plastic films fall under the same heading/sub-heading of Chapter 39. However, the Collector's order ended with the rejection of the Department's appeal, prompting the Department to file this appeal.

The Tribunal noted the importance of Section Note 2 in determining the classification under Chapter 39 or Chapter 49. It was observed that the Collector had accepted the Department's argument regarding classification under Chapter 39 but erroneously rejected the appeal in the final line of the order. The Tribunal suggested that a corrigendum should have been requested once the Department's substantive plea was accepted. Additionally, it was highlighted that the respondents did not appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals) regarding classification under Chapter 49.

The Tribunal emphasized the need for harmony between the actual findings in the order and the concluding statements. It was suggested that the word "rejected" in the final line of the order may have been a result of a drafting or typographical error. The Tribunal acknowledged the relevance of previous tribunal judgments on similar classification disputes but emphasized the specific circumstances of the present case. The appeal was disposed of with these observations, indicating the need for a suitable amendment or modification to the final line of the order for consistency with the substantive findings.