2013 (8) TMI 534 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - disposable aluminum foil casserole tray dish Applicability of decision of South Africa Supreme Court - Whether the disposable aluminum foil casserole falls under heading 76.15 or under heading 76.12 of the Central Excise tariff Relying upon the decision in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Vapi 2008 (10) TMI 179 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD , it was held that goods in question are properly classifiable under heading 76.15. The contention of the learned Jt.CDR that decision of foreign countries are not their own law and cannot be made applicable to Indian context, is not being acceptable by us inasmuch as the decision of Hon'ble South Africa Supreme Court was based upon the opinion of the Committee on Harmonised System which is also the basis of Indian Central Excise Tariff. For the same reasons, we find no merits in the contention of the learned Jt. CDR that the classification opinion given by Harmonized System Committee is not binding unless the same is made applicable by the Board's order /circular / notification or clarification. Goods in question are properly classifiable under heading 76.15 by following the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hindalco Industries 2008 (10) TMI 179 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD . - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of disposable aluminum foil casserole tray dish under Central Excise tariff - Heading 76.15 or 76.12.

Analysis:
1. The dispute in the present appeal revolves around the correct classification of the disposable aluminum foil casserole tray dish. The appellants claim classification under heading 76.15, while the revenue argues for classification under heading 76.12. The Commissioner confirmed demands and penalties based on this classification issue.

2. The appellants rely on a Tribunal decision and a Supreme Court judgment from South Africa to support their classification under heading 76.15. They argue that the goods fall under this heading based on the nature and use of the products, as detailed in the Tribunal's previous decision in a similar case.

3. On the other hand, the revenue contends that the goods should be classified under heading 76.12, citing the explanatory notes related to containers used for packing foodstuffs. They argue that the aluminum foil containers in question fall under this heading based on their use for packing and conveying food articles.

4. The revenue further argues that the goods do not qualify as "other household articles" under heading 76.15, as they are disposable and used in temporary contexts like trains and aircraft journeys. They emphasize the durable nature and repeated use associated with items classified under heading 76.15.

5. The Tribunal considers the submissions from both sides and examines the nature and use of the goods in question. They refer to the Harmonized System Committee's classification opinion and a decision of the Supreme Court of South Africa, which support the classification under heading 76.15 based on the specific dimensions and use of the disposable aluminum foil containers.

6. The Tribunal acknowledges the previous decision in a similar case where goods were classified under heading 76.15, emphasizing the persuasive value of the HSN opinion and the alignment of the Central Excise tariff with the HSN. They reject the revenue's arguments regarding the interpretation of "other household articles" and the applicability of foreign judgments.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal upholds the classification of the goods under heading 76.15, following the earlier decision and the recommendations of the HSN and the South Africa Supreme Court. They set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals with consequential relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, legal principles, and reasoning involved in the classification dispute regarding the disposable aluminum foil casserole tray dish under the Central Excise tariff.