2005 (9) TMI 81 - SC - Central Excise

Court upholds product classification under Tariff Heading 39.20.38 & 39.23.90 for plastic content

SHARP INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III

The Court upheld the classification of products under Tariff Heading 39.20.38 and 39.23.90, emphasizing the predominance of plastic content. The Appeal ... Whether the aluminium foils whose thickness does not exceed 0.2 mm, which is then covered on one side with a polyester film and on the other side with polyethylene are classifiable under Tariff Heading 76.07 and 76.12, as claimed by the Appellants, or under Tariff Heading 39.20.38 and 39.23.90, as claimed by the Respondent? Held that:- The Appellants have been dis-honest inasmuch as they did not point out to the Tribunal that in their own case, and for the same period, it has already been held by the Tribunal that the product is classifiable under Tariff Heading 39.20. This conduct has to be deprecated in no uncertain terms. In any case, this Judgment is only rendered on 7th July, 2005. Mr. Swami states that the Department is filing an Appeal against this Judgment. It must be mentioned that the Department was represented before the Tribunal. The Department has again been negligent in not pointing out to the Tribunal that in the Appellants' own case and for this very period, it has already been held by the Tribunal that the product is classifiable under Tariff Heading 39.20. Appeal dismissed. Issues: Classification of products under Tariff Headings 76.07 and 76.12 vs. 39.20.38 and 39.23.90Analysis:1. The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of products manufactured by the Appellants under specific Tariff Headings. The products in question were made of aluminum foil covered with polyester film and polyethylene, with the main issue being whether they should be classified under Tariff Heading 76.07 and 76.12 as claimed by the Appellants, or under Tariff Heading 39.20.38 and 39.23.90 as claimed by the Respondent.2. The lower authorities, including the Tribunal, had ruled against the Appellants based on test reports showing that plastic predominated over aluminum foil in the products. The Tribunal's decision was considered final on facts, and the Court was reluctant to interfere based on established legal principles that the Tribunal is the best judge of facts.3. However, the Court proceeded to analyze the merits of the case due to the detailed arguments presented and the subsequent adoption of an erroneous view by the Tribunal. The relevant Tariff Entries were examined, with Tariff Heading 39 identified as the specific heading covering such products made of plastic and other materials.4. The Court highlighted that the products in question predominantly consisted of plastic, as confirmed by test reports showing 70-80% plastic content. It was emphasized that Tariff Heading 76.07 applied only to aluminum foils backed with specific materials, whereas the products in this case were coated on both sides with different materials, making them unsuitable for classification under Chapter 76.5. The Appellants referenced subsequent Tribunal judgments taking a contrary view, but the Court held that these judgments did not affect the correctness of the impugned Judgment. The Court criticized the Revenue's negligence in not citing the relevant Judgment earlier, which could have served as a binding precedent.6. The Court further examined previous Tribunal decisions cited by the Appellants, emphasizing that those decisions were based on different tariff headings and did not alter the correct classification under Chapter 39 for the products in question.7. The Court dismissed the Appeal, noting the Appellants' dishonest conduct in not disclosing the Tribunal's earlier decision favoring classification under Tariff Heading 39.20. The Department's negligence in failing to point out this fact was also criticized, leading to the dismissal of the Appeal without costs.In conclusion, the Court upheld the classification of the products under Tariff Heading 39.20.38 and 39.23.90, emphasizing the predominance of plastic content and rejecting the Appellants' attempt to rely on inconsistent Tribunal judgments.