Full News

Customs & Excise

Supreme Court upheld CESTAT’s order as sheets were classified under Chapter 39

Supreme Court upheld CESTAT’s order as sheets were classified under Chapter 39

Punjab Laminates Pvt Ltd manufactured paper-based decorative laminated sheets, which were classified under Chapter 39. Revenue contended that they should have been classified under Chapter 48. CCCE rejected the respondent’s contention. CESTAT allowed respondent’s appeal. Supreme Court confirmed CESTAT’s order as sheets were classified under Chapter 39, and Revenue had not doubted correctness of manufacturing process.-900189

1. M/s Punjab Laminates Pvt Ltd manufactured paper based decorative laminated sheets, which were classified under Chapter 39 of the Custom Excise Tariff Act.

2. The Appellant contended that they should have been classified as sub-heading No. 4823.90. 3 The classification for the year 1993 was approved by the Revenue.

4. The Revenue requested Respondent to intimate the manufacturing process of the product, to which a reply was sent.

5. The respondent submitted taht authorities had cleared sheets between 8.1.1993 and 31.3.1994 upon giving the benefit of the notification dated 12.5.1989 and therefore the extended period of five years available under proviso to Section 11A was not applicable.

6. Commissioner of Excise rejected the respondent’s contention.

7. CESTAT allowed respondent’s appeal.

On appeal, the Supreme Court held as under:

8. It is not in dispute that the question as regards classification of the decorative laminated sheets being falling under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff and not under Chapter Heading 48 had been operating in the field.

9. It is difficult to believe that although the Respondent, prior to 8.1.1993, had been paying duty at the rate of 35% ad valorem, the benefit of notification No. 135/89 dated 12.5.1989 had been accorded to it without any verification and only on the basis of the statements made by the Respondent.

10. At no point of time, the Revenue doubted the correctness or otherwise of the manufacturing process or the ingredients disclosed by the Respondent.

11. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where this Court should interfere.

Case Reference - Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. Punjab Laminates Pvt. Ltd.

Supreme Court of India

CONCEPTS