1998 (6) TMI 246 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of paper - Cream Wove/Laid paper vs. Antique Wove/Laid paper.

Analysis:
The primary issue in this case before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA was the classification of the paper declared by the appellants as "Cream Wove/Laid paper" as opposed to the Revenue's claim that it was "Antique Wove/Laid paper" during specific periods in two paper mill units. The Revenue's case was based on the Chemical Examiner's report, the paper handbook of the appellants, price differentials between the two types of paper, and the absence of detailed customer instructions in the appellants' orders for the specific lots in question.

The appellant's representative argued that the Chemical Examiner's report was vague and inconclusive, emphasizing that the term "more akin" used in the report did not definitively prove that the paper was Antique Wove as alleged by the Revenue. Additionally, the appellant highlighted that the experts mentioned in the show-cause notice were not cross-examined during the hearing, weakening the department's case. The appellant stressed the importance of trade expert opinions in determining the classification of goods and contended that the department's case lacked substantiation by such experts.

On the other hand, the Revenue's representative pointed out that the basis of their case extended beyond the Chemical Examiner's report to include the price structure of the different paper types in the appellants' handbook. Despite the absence of the summoned expert opinions during the adjudication, the Revenue argued that no adverse inference should be drawn against them. Therefore, the Revenue requested the dismissal of the appeal.

After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found that the appellant's argument focusing on the term "more akin" was unsubstantial. The Tribunal noted that the Chemical Examiner's report clearly stated the similarity between the sample paper and Antique Wove paper, disregarding the appellant's interpretation. Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted that the Collector relied on various pieces of evidence supporting the Chemical Examiner's report, leading to the dismissal of the appellants' appeal.