1997 (8) TMI 372 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of goods under Heading 4410.90.
2. Applicability of Tribunal's decision on classification of paper faced laminated plywood.
3. Interpretation of the construction method analogy.
4. Disagreement on classification under Heading 4408.90 or 4410.90.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order classifying goods under Heading 4410.90 by the CCE (A), Bangalore. The CCE (A) differentiated the goods as peacock plywood MF Grade, compressed with cotton fabric coated with phenol formaldehyde, used for flooring. The department contended that the Tribunal's decision on paper faced laminated plywood classification does not apply to this case. The CCE (A) found the goods distinct from paper faced plywood and classified them under 4410.90 as articles of wood not elsewhere specified. The Tribunal upheld this classification, as the goods were decorated with cotton fabrics, similar to the Tribunal's decision on paper faced laminated plywood.

2. The department argued against the applicability of the Tribunal's decision on paper faced laminated plywood classification. They asserted that the goods in question, peacock plywood F grade and MF grade, should be classified under Heading 4408.90, as they are waterproof and weatherproof, similar to coated and non-slip plywood. However, the Tribunal found the analogy of the Tribunal's decision on paper faced laminated plywood to be applicable in this case due to the decorative nature of the cotton fabrics used on the goods. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal and upheld the classification under Heading 4410.90.

3. The construction method analogy was crucial in determining the classification of the goods. The CCE (A) and the Tribunal emphasized the decorative aspect of the goods, specifically the use of cotton fabrics, which aligned with the Tribunal's decision on paper faced laminated plywood. The construction method played a significant role in establishing the classification under Heading 4410.90, as it differentiated the goods from other types of plywood and justified their classification as articles of wood not elsewhere specified.

4. The disagreement between the department and the Tribunal centered on the classification under Heading 4408.90 or 4410.90. The department argued for the classification under Heading 4408.90 based on the waterproof and weatherproof characteristics of the goods. In contrast, the Tribunal upheld the classification under Heading 4410.90, considering the decorative nature of the cotton fabrics used on the goods. The Tribunal found no merit in the department's appeal, as the construction method analogy and the Tribunal's previous decision on paper faced laminated plywood supported the classification under Heading 4410.90.