1998 (10) TMI 213 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Classification of computer stationery under Chapter Heading 4823.90 or 4820, eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 43/86, applicability of Notification No. 49/87 for duty exemption, relevance of Board's Circular in classification.

Analysis:

1. Classification of computer stationery:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the classification of computer stationery under Chapter Heading 4823.90 as held by the Assistant Commissioner or under 4820 as claimed by the appellants. The Assistant Commissioner classified the product under 4823.90, stating that computer stationery need not necessarily be multipart or interleaved with carbon paper. The appellants argued that the product should be classified under 4820 as "Other articles of stationery" or as "manifold business forms" based on the description provided in the Harmonised System Nomenclature. They also highlighted that the Board's Circular dated 15-10-1991 supported their classification under 4820 and exemption under Notification No. 43/86.

2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 43/86:
The appellants contended that even if the product was classified under Chapter Sub-heading 4823.90, it should be exempt from duty payment under Notification No. 49/87, which exempts converted paper from duty. They argued that the process of manufacturing the computer stationery involved converting paper into a finished article, making it eligible for exemption. Additionally, they emphasized the relevance of the Board's Revised Clarification, which classified the product under Chapter Heading 4820, making it eligible for the benefit under Notification No. 43/86.

3. Applicability of Board's Circular in classification:
The Board's Circular dated 15-10-1991 played a crucial role in the judgment as it clarified that continuous computer stationery falls under heading 4820 and is exempt under Notification No. 43/86. The Circular withdrew a previous Circular and based its decision on a Tariff-cum-General Conference of Commissioners of Central Excise. The learned JDR accepted the Circular's relevance, leading to a mutual settlement between the parties and the appeal being allowed based on the Circular's guidance.

In conclusion, the judgment resolved the classification issue by relying on the Board's Circular, which supported the appellants' claim for classification under Chapter Heading 4820 and eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 43/86. The decision highlighted the importance of official guidelines and established practices in determining the classification of goods for duty purposes.