TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of appellants in crayplas classification dispute</h1> <h3>CAMLIN LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI</h3> CAMLIN LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 138 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues involved:Classification of crayplas shapeless plastic crayon under sub-heading No. 9609.00 vs. sub-heading No. 3204.19.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1 - Classification Dispute:The main issue in this case revolves around the classification of crayplas shapeless plastic crayon, with the appellants arguing for sub-heading No. 9609.00 and the department classifying it under sub-heading No. 3204.19. The appellants claim that the impugned goods are an in-process material used in manufacturing plastic crayons falling under sub-heading 9609.00, chargeable to nil rate of duty. They argue that the impugned goods are a mixture of raw materials in shapeless form, only needing to be molded into plastic crayons. The department issued show cause notices suggesting classification under sub-heading 3202.19 and demanding duty. The CCE confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty. A previous Tribunal order remanded the matter for de novo adjudication on the issue of classification.Issue 2 - Shifting of Production and Subsequent Disputes:The appellants shifted production of the impugned goods to a different unit, leading to further classification disputes. Initially, they claimed classification under sub-heading 3204.19 but later revised it to sub-heading 9609.00. Show cause notices were issued, and after adjudication, the Deputy Commissioner held the impugned goods to be classifiable under sub-heading 9609.00. However, a review by the Commissioner resulted in an appeal confirming the demand and imposing a penalty.Issue 3 - Grounds of Challenge:The advocate challenges the impugned order-in-appeal on various grounds, including the classification of the goods as unfinished plastic crayons under sub-heading 9609.00, procedural issues regarding the appeal sustainability, penalty imposition compliance, and the right to claim Modvat/Cenvat credit on inputs.Issue 4 - Legal Arguments and Precedents:The advocate argues that the impugned goods are solely used for making crayons, citing legal precedents and circulars supporting their classification under sub-heading 9609.00. They emphasize that the impugned goods have the essential characteristics of finished crayons and should be exempt from duty to align with the government's intention.Issue 5 - Revenue's Position:The Revenue argues that the impugned goods are mis-declared as shapeless crayons but are actually plastic crayon compound falling under Chapter 32 as a preparation. They rely on a test report and legal precedent to support their classification under sub-heading 3204.19.Final Decision:After considering the submissions, case records, and relevant legal provisions, the Tribunal concludes that the impugned goods should be classified under sub-heading 9609.00, in line with the essential characteristics of finished crayons. The Tribunal sets aside the impugned order-in-appeal and restores the original order-in-original, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellants.
TaxTMI 