2012 (8) TMI 892 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - Classification under CTH 4821.00 or under Heading 4819.19 - Held that - In the case of goods in question it is fairly clear that the product is used as wrapper and such product is classifiable under Heading 4819.19 as claimed by the Revenue since such sleeves are just not for indicating the nature, identity, manufacturer, price, etc., of the product but are used as wrappers, The position is obvious in the case of gift wrappers supplied to Sahara Airlines and is a reasonable inference in the case of Rolon Belt Sleeves. So we order classification of the product under sub-heading 4819.19. - The respondents had raised the issue that the demand is raised considering cum-duty-price as assessable value. They pray that the price realized should be split as assessable value and duty in which case the demand will come down. We are of the view that such benefit should be given in this case. Since this is a dispute about classification of the goods and no special role played by the Director is brought on record to impose penalty on him, we find it proper to waive penalty imposed on the Director of the Respondent Company and it is ordered accordingly. - Decided partly in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff - Correct classification under Heading 4819.19 or 4821.00, Penalty under Section 11AC of the Act, Assessable value determination, Imposition of penalty under Section 209A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Classification Issue:
The case involved two appeals regarding the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff. The Revenue contended that the goods should be classified under Heading 4819.19, while the respondents argued for classification under Heading 4821.00. The Tribunal noted that the samples of the goods were not available for examination, so they relied on case records and general understanding of the product description. The Commissioner (Appeals) had classified the goods under Heading 4821.00, but the Revenue relied on the Explanatory Note for Heading 4819 to support their classification argument.

Legal Interpretation:
The Revenue argued that Heading 48.21 covers labels used for indicating information on packages, not for packing goods or gift articles. They cited precedents to support their position. The Tribunal analyzed the HSN Notes and previous decisions, emphasizing that the classification depends on whether the item is used as an attachment or a wrapper. In this case, the goods were deemed to be used as wrappers, leading to classification under Heading 4819.19.

Penalty Imposition:
Regarding penalty under Section 11AC of the Act, the Tribunal dismissed the argument that previous duty payments indicated awareness of correct classification. They held that the penalty was justified due to the attempt to evade excise duty by misclassifying the goods. The Tribunal also addressed the demand calculation based on cum-duty-price, granting a benefit to the respondents.

Assessable Value and Penalty Waiver:
The respondents requested to pay 25% of the duty confirmed as penalty if the appeal was decided against them. Following a High Court decision, the Tribunal allowed this option, specifying the payment terms. Additionally, the penalty imposed on the Director of the company under Section 209A was waived as the dispute centered on classification, and no special role of the Director was established.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal disposed of the appeals and cross-objection, confirming the classification under Heading 4819.19, imposing penalty under Section 11AC, determining assessable value, and waiving the penalty on the Director. The decision provided clarity on the correct classification of the goods and addressed penalty considerations based on legal interpretations and precedents.