2019 (2) TMI 1166 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - Gloves used in Wicket Keeping and Batting in the game of cricket - Held that - The issue is no more res-integra and is settled by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Sanspareils Greelands Pvt. Ltd. V/s CCE & ST, Meerut 2016 (9) TMI 1230 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD , where in this Tribunal had held that in view of classification of Gloves by Central Board of Excise & Customs through notification issued for the purpose of fixing drawback rate, the same goods were classified under Chapter 95 and therefore, they are classifiable under Chapter 95 and that Revenue could not change its stand - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under Chapter 42 or Chapter 95, Benefit of extended period, Dropping of penalty

Classification of Goods:
The appeal involved a dispute over the classification of Gloves used in 'Wicket Keeping' and 'Batting' in cricket. The Revenue argued for classification under Chapter 42, while the respondent claimed classification under Chapter 95. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in M/s Sanspareils Greelands Pvt. Ltd. V/s CCE & ST, Meerut, where it was held that the Gloves were classified under Chapter 95 based on a notification by the Central Board of Excise & Customs. The Tribunal upheld this classification, stating that the Revenue could not change its stand. As a result, the appeal by Revenue was found to lack merit, and the Order-In-Appeal was not interfered with.

Benefit of Extended Period:
The Revenue had challenged the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow the benefit of the extended period to the respondent. The Commissioner had ruled in favor of the respondent, citing the absence of intention to evade payment of duty. The Tribunal, after considering arguments from both sides, upheld the decision of the Commissioner. It noted that the Revenue's contention on the extended period lacked merit, and therefore rejected the appeal filed by Revenue.

Dropping of Penalty:
Additionally, the Revenue contested the dropping of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Tribunal did not find any merit in this argument either. The Tribunal mentioned that the respondents did not challenge the confirmation of payment for the normal period, despite filing a cross-objection. Consequently, the appeal by Revenue on the dropping of penalty was also rejected. The Tribunal disposed of the cross-objection and the application for condonation of delay related to the cross-objection.