2015 (4) TMI 349 - SC - Central Excise

Supreme Court rules on door/window classification & price dispute under Central Excise Tariff Act

The Supreme Court addressed the classification of doors and windows under the Central Excise Tariff Act and a dispute over price computation by the ... Classification of doors and windows - Classification under Chapter sub-heading No. 3925.20 or Chapter sub-heading No. 3925.99 - Held that:- appellant contends, that the observations of the Tribunal are factually incorrect and contrary to the record and an endevour is made to point out that there is nothing which has come on record as has been expressed by the Tribunal. - If that is the contention of the appellant which is factual in nature, the remedy for the appellant is to approach the Tribunal by moving an appropriate application for rectification. Issues:1. Classification of doors and windows for Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Dispute regarding the manner of computing prices by the Tribunal.Classification of doors and windows for Central Excise Tariff Act:The Supreme Court dealt with the dispute concerning the classification of doors and windows supplied by the assessee to customers. The appellant argued that the goods should be classified under Chapter sub-heading No. 3925.20, claiming they are complete and only unassembled or disassembled. However, the Department contended that the goods should be classified under Chapter sub-heading No. 3925.99. The Tribunal sided with the Department, stating that the doors and windows are not supplied in complete form but are fabricated on-site by cutting the goods into required sizes. The appellant's counsel challenged the Tribunal's observations as factually incorrect and sought permission to withdraw the appeals to approach the Tribunal for rectification. The Court allowed the withdrawal with liberty to file a rectification application within 30 days, ensuring the application would be considered on merits without dismissal due to limitation.Dispute regarding the manner of computing prices by the Tribunal:In another set of appeals, the Department raised concerns about the manner in which the Tribunal computed prices. Citing a precedent, the Department argued that the Tribunal's approach was incorrect. The Court, having allowed the appellant in a previous case to approach the Tribunal for rectification, stated that it would be open for the Department to raise this issue before the Tribunal as well. The Court disposed of the Department's appeals with these observations, indicating that the Tribunal would review the Department's contentions on merits.This judgment primarily addressed the classification of doors and windows under the Central Excise Tariff Act and the dispute over the computation of prices by the Tribunal. It emphasized the importance of factual accuracy in Tribunal observations, allowing parties to seek rectification and ensuring applications are considered on their merits. The Court's decision provided clarity on the process for addressing such disputes and highlighted the role of the Tribunal in reviewing and resolving contentious issues raised by the parties.