1999 (2) TMI 148 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
Classification of plastic laminated sheet under sub-heading 3920.31 or sub-heading 4823.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the classification of a plastic laminated sheet under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The main issue was whether the plastic laminated sheet should be classified under sub-heading 3920.31 as contended by the Revenue or under sub-heading 4823.90 as held in the impugned order.

The Revenue argued that the classification should be under sub-heading 3920.31 based on a previous judgment by the Apex Court regarding paper-based decorative laminated sheets. On the other hand, the Respondent, M/s. Neoluxe India Ltd., represented by Shri A.V. Naik, contended that the impugned product did not fall under sub-heading 3920.31 because it did not involve the creation of a plastic rigid sheet. Instead, the manufacturing process included compressing paper sheets together and laminating them using heat and specific chemicals, which were considered non-excisable. The Respondent also referenced a Supreme Court judgment in a similar case to support their argument.

Upon considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal noted that the Assistant Collector had approved a classification list submitted by the Respondents, classifying the product under sub-heading 3920.31. However, the goods were seized later due to alleged misclassification under a different sub-heading. The Tribunal referred to previous Supreme Court judgments and concluded that paper-based decorative laminated sheets are classifiable under Heading 3920.31/3920.37 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the materials used in the manufacturing process, such as Phenol Formaldehyde or Melamine Formaldehyde, were indeed plastic, despite being considered non-excisable. Therefore, the impugned product was classified under sub-heading 3920.31/3920.37 and not under sub-heading 4823.90.

As a result, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Collector for readjudication based on the correct classification under sub-heading 3920.31/3920.37. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.