9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (11) TMI 11 - AT - Central ExciseCentral Excise - Appellant classified the photosensitive plates for printing under heading 37.05 of CET and claim exemption -Revenue classified under sub heading 8442.00 ibid and exemption denied -SC classified under heading 84.34 of CTA 1975 - As per order of Commissioner (Appeals) classified under heading of 84.42 of schedule CETA 1985
Issues:
Classification of "Exposed Aluminium Plates" under Chapter Heading 37.05 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff, 1985 for exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E., dated 2-4-1986 vs. classification under Central Excise Tariff subheading 8442.00. Analysis: The issue before the Appellate Tribunal was the classification of "Exposed Aluminium Plates" under the Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal considered the past decisions, including the case of Kasturi & Sons v. Collector of Customs and Collector of Customs v. Kumudan Publications (P) Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court upheld the classification of similar goods under heading 84.34 of the Customs Tariff Act in those cases. The Apex Court held that the goods were exclusively used in printing and fell under machinery, apparatus, and accessories for type founding or type-setting, which is covered under heading 84.34. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's reliance on a previous Tribunal decision and followed the ratio of the Apex Court decisions in the cases of Collector of Customs v. Kumudan Publications (P) Ltd. and Collector v. Kasturi & Sons. The Tribunal concluded that the goods in dispute should be classified under Heading 84.42, corresponding to Heading 84.34 of the Customs Tariff Act. The reference was answered accordingly. Since the only issue in the appeal was the classification of goods, and it was held to be under Heading 84.42 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who classified the goods under the same heading. The appeal of the assessee was rejected, and no other dispute remained for decision by the Division Bench.
|
