2015 (3) TMI 590 - SC - Central Excise

Customs appeal dismissed due to time limitation issue; goods classified under chapter 49 based on manufacturing process.

The first appeal was dismissed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench at Chennai due to a time limitation issue ... Classification of goods - manufacture - printed trade advertising material - Classification under heading 49.01 or heading 94.05 - Held that:- Process of manufacturing undertaken by the respondent i.e. printing is done by using thermocopied machine and therefore, it would fall under the head 49.01. By no stretch of imagination, such goods can be classified under the head 94.05 as no lamps and lighting fittings or search lights or spotlights are used by the respondent for the purpose of illuminated signs or illuminated name plates and sign boards. We, therefore, agree with the finding of the Tribunal. - Decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Appeal dismissed on the ground of time limitation for issuing show cause notice.2. Classification dispute between Chapter 49 and Chapter 94 for goods manufacturing process.Issue 1: Appeal Dismissed on Time Limitation GroundIn the first case, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench at Chennai decided in favor of the appellant but dismissed the appeal based on the ground that the demand raised was beyond the prescribed time limit. The demand pertained to a period from October 1991 to September 1996, and the show cause notice was issued on 4th November 1996, exceeding the six-month period from when the appellant furnished all necessary particulars. The dismissal was solely based on this time limitation issue, as highlighted by the counsel for the respondents, and the appeal was consequently rejected.Issue 2: Classification Dispute between Chapter 49 and Chapter 94The second case involved an appeal against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai, regarding the classification of goods under different headings. The respondents argued that the goods should be classified under heading 49.01, while the department sought to classify them under heading 94.05. The manufacturing process of the goods involved digital printing on electrostatic paper, transferring the image onto surfaces like vinyl or flex material, and further processes for glow signs. The Tribunal examined the manufacturing process and concluded that the goods fell under heading 49.01, as they were produced using a thermocopied machine, not involving lamps or lighting fittings as described under heading 94.05. The appeals were dismissed based on this classification analysis, affirming the Tribunal's decision and finding no merit in the appeals.By analyzing the two issues in the judgments, it is evident that the dismissal of the first appeal was primarily due to a procedural time limitation, while the second appeal's outcome was determined by the correct classification of goods based on the manufacturing process involved. The judgments provide a detailed examination of the legal grounds and factual circumstances surrounding each issue, resulting in the respective decisions reached by the courts.