2016 (7) TMI 489 - AT - Central Excise

Classification - manufacture of calendar/panchang - whether or not the impugned publications are more appropriately categorized as calendars (CETH 4910) or as panchang or almanac (CETH 4901) - Held that - We find that calendars are specifically covered by name under C.E.T.H. 4910. We have perused the Panchang published by the appellants. The ld. Counsel claimed that it contained almost 99 types of information covering a wide range of subjects. He submitted a list of such information. While we take note that the distinction between a calendar and almanac is not categorical and perfect, certain salient features and the actual nature of the publication will indicate the basic use. Firstly, we find that the impugned publication is named and marketed as Panchang. Less than 50% of the page space displays the date sequence of the calendar month. The page contains many details of auspicious times, grihasthithi Rashiphal other information of planetary position etc. We find on perusal, that the impugned items marketed as Panchang is not a simple calendar but essentially a publication containing large number of various information not incidental only to sequence of dates alone. The predominant features are details of Tithi, Nakshatra, Vara Yoga and Karana which are linked to the dates in a calendar month. After careful evaluation of the facts and nature of impugned publication we find that the impugned items can not be categorized as calendars and classified under C.E.T.H. 4910. The findings of the lower authorities are not sustainable. As such, the appeals are allowed in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Heading (C.E.T.H.) 4910.00.90 as calendars or panchang/almanac.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of goods under C.E.T.H. 4910.00.90
The appellants were engaged in manufacturing calendar/panchang, and the dispute arose regarding their classification for Central Excise duty under C.E.T.H. 4910.00.90 as calendars. The Original Authority held that the items manufactured were calendars under C.E.T.H. 4910 00 90, attracting Central Excise duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading the appellants to file an appeal before the tribunal.

Issue 2: Interpretation of the nature of the products
The appellant argued that the lower authorities failed to understand the actual nature of the products in question. They presented a current year's panchang/calendar to demonstrate the similarity with the impugned goods. The appellant relied on a decision by the Hon'ble High Court of M.P., Jabalpur, in a similar case, where it was held that the publication in question was an almanac or a panchang. The argument revolved around whether the items should be classified as calendars or panchang/almanac for tax liability purposes.

Issue 3: Examination of the impugned publications
Upon hearing both sides and examining the appeal records, the tribunal delved into the content and nature of the impugned publications. The lower authorities contended that the items were calendars classifiable under heading 4910 of Central Excise Tariff. The tribunal analyzed the content of the publication marketed as Panchang and noted that it contained a wide range of information beyond just date sequences. The tribunal observed that less than 50% of the page space displayed the date sequence, with the rest containing details of auspicious times, planetary positions, and other relevant information. The tribunal referenced a previous High Court decision on a similar publication to support its conclusion that the items in question were not simple calendars but publications with various informational content, leading to the classification as panchang/almanac rather than calendars under C.E.T.H. 4910.

In conclusion, the tribunal found that the impugned items could not be categorized as calendars under C.E.T.H. 4910 and should be classified differently based on their content and nature as detailed in the Panchang. Therefore, the tribunal allowed the appeals, overturning the findings of the lower authorities.