1999 (10) TMI 178 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under Notification 44/86 for concessional duty rate.

Classification of Goods and Entitlement to Concessional Duty:
The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of self-copy papers, filed classification lists claiming exemption under Notification 44/86 for concessional duty rate. Initially approved by the Assistant Collector, it was later found that their products did not qualify for this exemption. Despite filing additional classification lists during the appeal process, the department denied them the benefit of Notification 44/86, demanding a substantial differential duty amount. The Assistant Collector classified their products under sub-heading 4816.00, rejecting their appeal. The appellants challenged this decision before the Collector (Appeals) and subsequently before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had previously ruled on a similar case involving the appellants and another company, concluding that the goods were classifiable under Heading 4816.00 and not eligible for the concessional duty rate under Notification 44/86. The Tribunal's decision was deemed final and binding on the appellants, precluding them from rearguing the classification issue.

Reclassification Claim and Board's Circular:
The appellants contended that their goods should be reclassified under sub-heading 4823.90 based on Board's Circular No. 10/89, dated 13-3-1989. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the circular was not raised during the initial proceedings and could not override its previous judgment. Additionally, the circular specifically pertained to tele-printer rolls, distinct from the self-copy papers manufactured by the appellants. A precedent case highlighted the difference between tele-printer paper rolls and printing/writing paper, further weakening the reclassification claim. The Tribunal emphasized that the circular did not support the appellants' request for reclassification under a different sub-heading.

Validity of Collector's Order and Dismissal of Appeal:
The Tribunal found no merit in the appellants' appeal, upholding the validity of the Collector's order. It concluded that the impugned order was legally sound and free from any infirmity, leading to the dismissal of the appellants' appeal. The judgment emphasized that the appellants were bound by the Tribunal's previous decision on classification, and their attempt to seek reclassification based on the Board's circular was deemed misconceived and legally untenable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Collector's decision regarding the classification of goods and the entitlement to concessional duty rates under Notification 44/86.