2018 (6) TMI 634 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - surgical tray, kidney tray, bed pan, lotion bowl, pressure pan (all of stainless steel), sieve chassis and tray and tubs (all of aluminium) - erstwhile rule 173B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - According to Revenue, surgical tray, kidney tray, bed pan and lotion bowl, with classification revised to 7323 90 from 7323 00, was not entitled to exemption under N/N. 41/94-CE at sl no. Held that - The said items are used for patient care and for goods that may also find use in hospitals are not, by that reason alone, excluded from the ambit of household articles. As the issue of classification declared by the appellant has not been touched upon in the impugned order, the eligibility for exemption cannot be denied. As far as pressure pans are concerned, the cookers/pans/parts thereof are eligible for exemption under notification 181/88-CE which has not been rescinded even if N/N. 180/88-CE has been. In any case, it is seen that the goods in question are not pressure pans but the bottom portion which, even if designed for use with pressure cooker lid, yet remains a kitchen article entitled for exemption-under N/N. 41/94-CE. In view of the lack of a clear exposition of the issue and finding, there is no reason to deny the exemption claimed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over classification lists for stainless steel and aluminium products under Central Excise Rules, 1944. Challenge to disallowance of exemption from central excise duties under specific notifications. Validity of classification lists and eligibility for exemption under different notifications.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the classification lists of a manufacturer of stainless steel and aluminium products under Central Excise Rules, 1944. The core issue was the disallowance of exemption from central excise duties under specific notifications, leading to a revenue dispute. The first appellate authority challenged the approval of the classification lists, which resulted in the denial of exemption benefits. The appellant's classification lists were revised multiple times, and notices for recovery of differential duty were issued. However, the demand on the items denied exemption was not quantified by the first appellate authority.

The Authorized Representative argued against the exemption for certain items, claiming they did not fall under the relevant notifications. The Tribunal analyzed the items in question, including surgical tray, kidney tray, bed pan, lotion bowl, and sieve chassis, trays, and tubs. It was contended that these items did not qualify as household or kitchen articles for exemption under specific notifications. The Tribunal disagreed with this interpretation and held that the eligibility for exemption could not be denied solely based on the items' use in hospitals.

Regarding pressure pans and bottom portions for pressure cooker lids, the Tribunal found them eligible for exemption under specific notifications. The Tribunal also addressed a vague finding concerning sieve chassis, trays, and tubes, stating that the lack of a clear exposition of the issue led to the exemption being wrongly denied. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, emphasizing the lack of clarity in the findings.

In conclusion, the judgment resolved the dispute over classification lists and exemption eligibility under various notifications, emphasizing the need for a clear interpretation of the issues at hand to determine the applicability of exemptions accurately. The decision highlighted the importance of proper assessment and classification of goods to avoid disputes over duty exemptions.