9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Excisability of pieces comprising mosaic tiles and their classification in the tariff. Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this case revolves around determining the excisability of pieces forming mosaic tiles and their classification in the tariff. The Commissioner had held these pieces to be marketable excisable goods under heading 69.05 of the Tariff. The appellant contended that these pieces were not marketable as they were not sold or purchased by anyone. 2. The appellant's representative explained the manufacturing process of mosaic tiles, involving the creation of small pieces of different shapes and sizes, which are then fired to form the final mosaic. The appellant argued that these individual pieces were not larger than 5 centimetres in any dimension and were not sold separately but used to create the final mosaic. 3. The Commissioner acknowledged that the appellant did not sell these individual pieces but asserted that what emerged from the furnace were tiles recognizable as such. The departmental representative argued that each piece could be bought and sold individually, allowing customers to create custom designs. The classification of the finished product as mosaic tiles under heading 68.07 of the Tariff was also discussed. 4. The Tribunal emphasized the need to establish the marketability of individual pieces to determine their excisability. It was highlighted that the mere fact that the appellant did not sell the pieces did not negate their marketability. The focus was on whether similar goods manufactured by others were bought and sold in the market. 5. The Tribunal also delved into the significance of the term "mosaic tile" and its commercial definition. The application of Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules in classifying individual pieces was discussed, along with the requirement for fired shaping for classification under Chapter 69. The Tribunal noted the necessity to examine whether the pieces acquired the identity of mosaic tiles only after arrangement in the mould. 6. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the Commissioner's order and directing a fresh adjudication according to law. Both parties were granted the opportunity to present evidence to support their contentions in this matter. The decision highlighted the importance of analyzing the marketability and classification of individual pieces in the context of excisability.
|
