2015 (9) TMI 927 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal affirms goods classification under Tariff Heading 6807.10 based on composition analysis and consistent principles

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and affirmed the classification of the goods under Tariff Heading 6807.10. The decision was based on the ... Classification of goods - ceramic tile - smaller pieces ( cubes of various sizes and shapes) manufactured and affixed to a sheet (craft paper) - switching over to Chapter 68 from Chapter 69 - assessee earlier classified the goods under Tariff 6905.10 - after the decision of the Tribunal in the cases of Shon Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise - [1990 (11) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] and Collector of Central Excise Vs. Shon Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. - [1996 (3) TMI 222 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] and Notification No.8/2002 dated 1.3.2002, it changed its classification to Tariff Heading 6807.10. Held that:- No material found from Revenue to show as to whether the goods of respondent were technically tested by any recognized laboratory or national institute to hold that the goods were ceramic. Accordingly, it is safe to relyon the finding of the Tribunal made in the aforesaid decision for application thereof to the case of the assessee since its goods are similar to that of M/s. Shon Ceramics not opposed by Revenue. Tribunal having examined very carefully the composition of the cubes which are ultimately pasted on kraft paper to give raise to the goods in question, both the decisions of the Tribunal when appealed by Revenue before the Apex Court, those were dismissed as reported in [1997 (9) TMI 608 - SUPREME COURT] finding no discrepancy in the ratio laid down by the Tribunal. - Revenue's appeal fails on merit. - Decided against Revenue. Issues:Classification of goods under Tariff Heading 6807.10 vs. 6905.10Analysis:The appeal centered around the classification of goods manufactured by the assessee, specifically whether they should be classified under Tariff Heading 6807.10 or 6905.10. The revenue contended that the goods should fall under Chapter 69 instead of Chapter 68 due to the assessee's alleged attempt to benefit from the SSI exemption notification by changing the classification. The revenue sought to reverse the Commissioner (Appeals) decision classifying the goods under Chapter 68.The Tribunal analyzed the competing entries of Chapter 68 and Chapter 69 to determine the correct classification. The revenue argued that the goods manufactured by the assessee, consisting of cubes affixed to a sheet, fell under Chapter 69 based on the description of goods under HSN Note 6907.10. However, the respondent maintained that the goods were sold as mosaic tiles and should be classified under Chapter 68.The Tribunal referred to previous decisions involving similar goods and noted that the term 'ceramic' could be covered under both Chapter 68 and Chapter 69. The Tribunal scrutinized Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 69, emphasizing that it applies only to ceramic products fired after shaping. The Tribunal examined the composition of the goods and concluded that since the products were made predominantly of various stones with minimal clay material, they should be classified under Chapter 68.The Tribunal highlighted the absence of evidence from the revenue to prove that the goods were ceramic and upheld its previous decision regarding similar goods. The Tribunal also referenced past decisions dismissed by the Apex Court, reinforcing the consistency in classification. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the classification of the goods under Chapter 68.In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on the interpretation of relevant tariff headings, the characteristics of the goods in question, and the absence of concrete evidence to support reclassification. The judgment underscored the importance of consistent classification principles and upheld the initial classification of the goods under Tariff Heading 6807.10.