2000 (9) TMI 187 - AT - Central Excise

CEGAT Mumbai Tribunal Upholds Goods Classification & Penalty Imposition, Denies Extended Limitation

JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., AURANGABAD

JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., AURANGABAD - 2001 (137) E.L.T. 557 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues: Classification of goods under tariff headings, eligibility for duty exemption, extended period of limitation, confiscation of plastic scrap, imposition of penalty.The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai involved a case where M/s. Jain Irrigation System Ltd. filed a declaration in 1994 claiming their manufactured goods to be mechanical appliances used in agricultural/horticultural irrigation systems. The goods included poly tubes, drippers, regulators, and emitters. The department disputed this classification and exemption claim, proposing a different classification under heading 39.17 for poly tubes and other tubes. The Commissioner confirmed the classification but ruled out the extended period for invoking penalties. Confiscation of plastic scrap was ordered due to alleged non-compliance with formalities. The department appealed this decision.In the department's appeal, it was argued that the extended period should apply due to alleged mis-declaration by the assessee. However, the tribunal found that the classification list relied upon was not filed by the assessee, and the extended period could not be invoked. The appeal's other grounds were also dismissed as insufficient to support the extended period.Regarding the assessee's appeal, they challenged the classification of poly tubes and the confiscation of plastic scrap. The assessee claimed the goods should be classified under heading 84.24, citing various supporting documents and standards. The tribunal noted discrepancies in the declaration, particularly the absence of main pipes crucial for an irrigation system. It was concluded that the exemption claimed by the assessee was incorrect.The classification of plastic scrap was also contested, with the assessee arguing it was not a result of manufacturing. However, the tribunal held that duty was payable on the scrap as it emerged during the manufacturing process. The non-compliance with filing a classification list justified the confiscation of the scrap and the imposition of a penalty, which was deemed reasonable considering the value and duty payable.In conclusion, both appeals were dismissed, affirming the classification of goods under a different heading, the confiscation of plastic scrap, and the imposition of the penalty.