2016 (8) TMI 198 - AT - Central Excise

Classification - Goods manufactured by the appellant made of plastic availing exemption under notification no.33/99-CE appellate authority rejected claim contending goods falling under excise tariff heading 39.01 to 39.14 to be plastic material and claims appellant goods not to be plastic material falling under tariff heading 39.22 and 39.26 Held that Chapter Notes/Section Notes given under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 cannot be made applicable to interpret an entry contained in an exemption notification unless such exemption notification refers to some tariff headings in the body of the notification. - Similar view was taken by CESTAT, Delhi in the case of Kurlon Ltd. vs.- Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I (2014 (4) TMI 334 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) while interpreting similar entry in Notification No.50/2003-C.E. dated 10.06.2003. There is no specification that plastic under Sl.No.13(IV) should fall under C.E.T.H 39.01 to 39.14 appellant eligible to claim exemption decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether goods manufactured qualify as products of plastic for exemption under Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of polyurethane foam, claimed area-based exemption under Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999. The First Appellate Authority rejected the claim, stating that the appellant's products did not fall under the definition of plastic as per Chapter Note 1 of Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. The appellant argued that only regular geometric shapes are classifiable under specific tariff headings, and other shapes of polyurethane foam should be classified under a different category. They relied on a circular issued by C.B.E.C. and a case law to support their claim.

The Revenue contended that materials classified under specific tariff headings can be considered plastic in primary forms, and the appellant's products did not meet this criterion. The issue revolved around whether the appellant's goods qualified as products of plastic for the purpose of exemption under the notification.

The Tribunal analyzed the notification and noted that it did not specify any particular tariff heading or chapter for plastics. It was observed that the First Appellate Authority did not dispute that the goods were gas-based intermediate products, but the contention was whether they qualified as plastic. Referring to the circular and case law cited by the appellant, the Tribunal held that if a material is considered plastic, the finished product made from it would also be classified as plastic. The Tribunal emphasized that the notification did not restrict plastics to specific tariff headings, thus covering the plastic manufactured by the appellant. Drawing parallels with a similar case, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting relief to the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the appellant was eligible to avail the exemption under Notification No. 33/99-CE dated 08.07.1999, as the goods manufactured by them could be considered products of plastic under the given circumstances.