1999 (6) TMI 143 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods as block board or decorative plywood under Chapter 44 vs. parts of sewing machine under Chapter 84

Classification under Chapter 44 vs. Chapter 84:
The key issue in this appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA was the classification of the appellant's goods. The dispute centered around whether the goods should be classified as block board or decorative plywood under Chapter 44 of CETA, 1985, or as parts of sewing machines, specifically sewing machine table tops or sewing machine covers made of plywood/block board under Chapter 84. The Revenue contended that the appellant was manufacturing block board/decorative/laminated plywood falling under Chapter 44. Conversely, the appellant argued that they processed the goods to create sewing machine table tops with necessary features for fitting the sewing machine, thus falling under Chapter 84. The factual clarity on this issue was lacking, as observed by the Assistant Collector in the order-in-original. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of determining how the goods were cleared from the factory to ascertain their correct classification. The Tribunal highlighted that if the goods were cleared as plain block boards or plywood sheets, they would be classified under Chapter 44; however, if they were cleared after necessary processing to become parts of sewing machines, they would fall under Chapter 84.

Remand for De Novo Adjudication:
In light of the unclear factual position and the necessity to determine how the goods were cleared from the factory, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal by remanding it for de novo adjudication by the concerned Assistant Collector. The purpose of the remand was to establish the facts regarding the processing and clearance of the goods to make a proper classification based on whether they were sold as plain plywood or as parts of sewing machines. The Tribunal stressed the importance of documentary evidence to support the appellant's claim if the factory was indeed closed. The decision to remand the case aimed to ensure a thorough examination of the facts and appropriate classification of the goods in accordance with the observations made during the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA addressed the critical issue of classifying the appellant's goods either as block board or decorative plywood under Chapter 44 or as parts of sewing machines under Chapter 84. The lack of clarity regarding how the goods were processed and cleared from the factory necessitated a remand for de novo adjudication to determine the factual position accurately and make a proper classification based on the form in which the goods were sold. The decision underscored the significance of establishing the correct facts to ensure accurate classification and compliance with the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.