2017 (11) TMI 1319 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - whether the classification for the products namely, HDPE strips, HDPE knitted fabrics and HDPE knitted bags are classifiable under sub-heading 39201092, 39269090 and 39232990 of CETA, 1985 or 54049020, 54072090, 63053300 of CETA, 1985? - Held that - the said issue has been decided by this Tribunal in appellant s own case Vijay A Polymers Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli 2017 (4) TMI 1164 - CESTAT CHENNAI , where it was held that the width of the tape is of 1.5 mm and the goods manufactured by the appellants are classifiable as textile fabrics and articles of fabrics rightly classifiable under chapter heading 60059000 and the strips (HDPE) not exceeding 5mm is classifiable under 54049020 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved: Classification of products (HDPE strips, HDPE knitted fabrics, HDPE knitted bags) under sub-heading No.392010.92, 392690.90, 392329.90 of CETA'1975 or under sub-heading No.540490.20, 540720.90, 630533.00 of CETA'1985.

In this case, the appellants were manufacturing various products like HDPE strips, HDPE knitted fabrics, HDPE knitted bags, and HDPE waste under specific subheading numbers of CETA'1985. Initially, they paid excise duty at a rate of 16% ad valorem on home clearances. However, in April 2006, they reclassified the goods under different chapters and cleared HDPE waste by paying duty at 8% Adv. The Department issued a show-cause notice in September 2007, contending that the products should be classified under Chapter 39. The original authority confirmed this classification, levied duty with interest, and imposed penalties, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The main issue was whether the products should be classified under sub-heading numbers of CETA'1975 or CETA'1985. The Tribunal had previously decided a similar issue in the appellant's favor in a previous case. Consequently, the Tribunal found the demand for duty to be unsustainable, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief as per the law.

In the absence of the appellant during the proceedings, the Tribunal heard the learned Authorized Representative and examined the records. The Tribunal's decision was based on the previous ruling in the appellant's own case, where a similar issue regarding the classification of products had been decided in favor of the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the demand for duty was not justified and overturned the previous order, allowing the appeal with any necessary relief according to the law. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court.