9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 7 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - CFL lamps - whether the goods will be classifiable under Tariff Item No.85393110 or under Tariff Item No.85399010? - Held that - Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has taken into consideration the various statements recorded of Shri Arunava Choudhary Shri M.S. Karolia Shri Satnam Singh and examined the said Rule 2 (a) of General Rules for Interpretation of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 and relied on the ruling by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s O.K. Play (India) Ltd. Vs CCE Gurgaon 2005 (2) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and concluded that the goods which were cleared from Noida unit were classifiable under Tariff Item No.85393110. The findings recorded by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) are sustainable in law - the goods cleared by IAFL from Noida unit were appropriately classifiable under Tariff Item No.85393110. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues: Classification of goods under Tariff Item No.85393110 or Tariff Item No.85399010
In this case, the main issue involved was the classification of goods cleared by M/s Indo Asian Fusegear Ltd. (IAFL) from their Noida unit. The dispute arose as to whether the partially processed glass tubes transferred to their Haridwar unit were classifiable as CFL under Tariff Item No.85393110 or as parts of CFL under Tariff Item No.85399010. The Revenue argued that the goods cleared from the Noida unit were parts of CFL and should be classified under Tariff Item No.85399010, attracting a higher duty rate. On the other hand, IAFL contended that the goods transferred had the essential character of a complete CFL, as they were capable of glowing when electricity was passed through them. Analysis: The Tribunal considered multiple appeals arising from the same issue and decided to hear them together. The case involved the manufacturing process of CFL lamps by IAFL, where some manufacturing processes were carried out at their Noida unit and the remaining at their Haridwar unit. The goods in question were glass tubes with tungsten filaments, which were partially processed at the Noida unit and then transferred to the Haridwar unit for further assembly with components like starters, capacitors, and plastic caps. The classification dispute centered around whether these partially processed goods should be classified as complete CFLs or as parts of CFLs. The Revenue issued multiple show cause notices demanding Central Excise duty from IAFL, which led to appeals and counter-appeals. The Original Authority confirmed the demand in the first show cause notice and imposed a penalty on an individual. Subsequent appeals and orders by the Commissioner (Appeals) were challenged by both parties before the Tribunal. During the proceedings, the Tribunal examined various statements and legal provisions to determine the appropriate classification of the goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on statements of individuals involved in the manufacturing process and interpreted Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Tribunal also considered relevant case laws, including a ruling by the Supreme Court, to support its decision. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision that the goods cleared by IAFL from the Noida unit were correctly classifiable under Tariff Item No.85393110, as they had the essential character of a complete CFL. The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by IAFL and dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, granting consequential relief to IAFL and the individual involved. In conclusion, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the classification issue, considering legal provisions, statements of involved parties, and relevant case laws to determine the appropriate classification of the goods in question.
|
