9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of acrylic sheet scrap and cellulose acetate cuttings under Tariff Item 15A(1) or 68.
Analysis: 1. Classification Issue: The main issue in the appeals filed by M/s. Bina Corporation and Ruby Products is the classification of acrylic sheet scrap and cellulose acetate cuttings under Tariff Item 15A(1) as confirmed by the Department or under Item 68 as claimed by the importers of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal had previously ruled differently for each appellant, leading to the current appeal. 2. Appellant's Argument: The learned Advocate for the appellants argued that the acrylic sheet scrap and cellulose acetate cuttings should not be classified under Item 15A(1) as they arise during the manufacturing process of articles from CAB sheets and acrylic sheets, which are not explicitly included in Item 15A(2). He relied on a Bombay High Court decision to support his contention that waste and scrap arising from articles mentioned in Item 15A(2) should be classified under Item 68. 3. Revenue's Argument: On the other hand, the learned SDR contended that Explanation III(c) added to Item 15A clearly states that waste and scrap are covered by Item 15A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff. He argued that the waste and scrap in question fall under Item 15A(1) based on this explanation and the absence of evidence showing that they did not arise during the condensation or polymerization process. 4. Tribunal's Decision: After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal examined the nature of the scrap and cuttings in question. It found that the acrylic sheet cuttings from Bina Corporation and the cellulose acetate cuttings from Ruby Products were obtained from the respective articles of plastics, indicating their origin. Citing a Bombay High Court decision, the Tribunal concluded that waste and scrap falling under Item 15A(1) are covered by Explanation III, while those from articles falling under Item 15A(2) should be classified under Item 68. Therefore, the waste and scrap in question were classified under Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. 5. Remand and Conclusion: The Tribunal decided to remand all four matters to the Assistant Collector to examine the availability of Notification 182/82 for the appellants. It also highlighted that any consequential relief should consider the amendment in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act regarding unjust enrichment. Consequently, all four appeals were allowed by way of remand for further examination and consideration. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the classification issue and the Tribunal's decision in the case involving acrylic sheet scrap and cellulose acetate cuttings under the Central Excise Tariff.
|
