2015 (2) TMI 345 - HC - Central Excise

Rate of duty - whether the classification of water filters manufactured and cleared by the appellant/assessee to be assessed under CET sub-heading 7323.10 as tableware and kitchenware, as claimed by the assessee or under CET sub-heading 8421.10, as filtering or purifying machinery or apparatus - Held that - As evident from the objection as made by the Department, the issue pertains to rate of duty that is payable by the assessee. Therefore, the objection as raised by the respondent is liable to be sustained, more so, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Navin Chemicals Manufacturing & Trading Co. Ltd. - Vs - Collector of Customs (1993 (9) TMI 107 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), which decision has been followed by this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise - Vs - Vadapalani Press (2015 (1) TMI 318 - MADRAS HIGH COURT). - while this Court is not inclined to deal with the matter, while disposing off the present appeal as not maintainable, is inclined to grant liberty to the appellant/assessee to pursue the matter before the Supreme Court, if so advised. - Appeal not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of water filters under CET sub-heading 7323.10 or 8421.10, Benefit of Notification 4/97, Appeal jurisdiction based on substantial question of law.

Classification Issue:
The appeal challenges the classification of water filters under CET sub-heading 7323.10 as tableware and kitchenware by the assessee versus under CET sub-heading 8421.10 as filtering or purifying machinery by the Revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially ruled in favor of the assessee, but the Tribunal overturned this decision, leading to the present appeal. The Tribunal relied on HSN notes and a previous decision to support its classification. The Department argued that the issue only concerns the rate of duty, suggesting that the appeal should be directed to the Supreme Court.

Benefit of Notification 4/97:
The assessee claimed entitlement to the benefit of Notification 4/97, while the Department disputed this claim. The Tribunal's decision was based on the HSN notes and a previous case, leading to the rejection of the assessee's claim. The Department contended that the issue was solely related to the rate of duty, implying that the appeal should be directed to the Supreme Court.

Appeal Jurisdiction Issue:
The High Court noted that the objection raised by the Department related to the rate of duty payable by the assessee. Citing relevant case law, the Court determined that the issue at hand falls within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable but granted the appellant/assessee the liberty to pursue the matter before the Supreme Court if desired.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal due to the issue falling within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court regarding the rate of duty payable by the assessee. The Court granted the appellant the liberty to approach the Supreme Court for further redress, emphasizing that there would be no order as to costs in this matter.