2019 (4) TMI 989 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Appellants' Classification Decision: No Duty or Penalties

The Tribunal held that the appellants' classification of Par-boiling machines under Chapter Heading No. 8437 was correct for the period before 15.05.2014, ... Classification of goods - Par-boiling machines - whether classified under Chapter Heading No. 8437 of CETA, 1985 or under Chapter Heading No. 8419 of CETA? - HELD THAT:- The facts are not in dispute that for the period prior to 15.05.2014, the circular dated 19.05.2010 was in operation. In that circumstance, it is to be seen that whether the circular dated 19.05.2010 is binding on the revenue authorities during the period in question or not? - Admittedly, the said issue has been examined by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PAPER PRODUCTS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [1999 (8) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that so far as the Department is concerned, whatever action it has to take, the same will have to be consistent with the Circular which is in force at the relevant point of time. Thus, as the circular dated 19.05.2010 was in operation during the period in question, therefore, we hold that the said circular is binding on the departmental officers. For the period prior to 15.05.2014 if the appellants have classified their products in question under Chapter Heading No. 8437 of CETA, no demand is sustainable in terms of the Circular No. 924/14/2010-CX dated 19.05.2010 - demand for the period with penalties set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues Involved:1. Classification of Par-boiling machines under the appropriate Chapter Heading of CETA, 1985.2. Applicability of CBEC Circulars and their binding nature on the revenue authorities.3. Entitlement to Cenvat credit on inputs used in manufacturing the final product.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Par-boiling Machines:The appellants were classifying their Par-boiling machines under Chapter Heading No. 8437 of CETA, 1985, while the Revenue contended that these machines should be classified under Chapter Heading No. 8419. The Tribunal initially upheld the Revenue's view, classifying the machines under Chapter Heading No. 8419. The appellants challenged this decision before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which directed the Tribunal to constitute a Larger Bench. The Larger Bench also concluded that the machines should be classified under Chapter Heading No. 8419. Consequently, the appeals were listed for final disposal.2. Applicability of CBEC Circulars:During the relevant period, CBEC Circular No. 924/14/2010-CX dated 19.05.2010 was in effect, which classified rice Par-boiling machinery under Chapter Heading No. 8437. This circular was rescinded by Circular No. 982/06/2014-CX dated 15.05.2014, which directed classification under Chapter Heading No. 8419. The appellants argued that as per the earlier circular, their classification under Chapter Heading No. 8437 was correct, and no duty could be demanded for clearances made before 15.05.2014. They cited several judgments, including Paper Products Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara vs. Dhiren Chemical Industries, asserting that departmental circulars are binding on revenue authorities.The Tribunal examined these arguments and referenced multiple judgments affirming that circulars issued by the Board are binding on the Department. It was noted that the circular dated 19.05.2010 was in operation during the period in question, making it binding on the revenue authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to classify their products under Chapter Heading No. 8437 for the period before 15.05.2014.3. Entitlement to Cenvat Credit:The appellants also argued that if they were liable to pay duty, they should be entitled to Cenvat credit on the inputs used in manufacturing the final product. The Tribunal acknowledged that the inputs used in manufacturing the final product were dutiable and that the appellants had discharged their duty liability. Therefore, the Cenvat credit was available to the appellants, and the duty liability calculated by the adjudicating authority was not correct.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that for the period prior to 15.05.2014, the appellants' classification of their products under Chapter Heading No. 8437 was correct as per Circular No. 924/14/2010-CX dated 19.05.2010. Consequently, no demand for duty was sustainable, and no penalties were imposable. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders demanding duty from the appellants were set aside.