2000 (9) TMI 197 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules on classification of polished tiles

The Tribunal held that the polished tiles manufactured by the appellant were not classified as glazed tiles. It was determined that glazing should be an ... Tiles - Demand - Limitation - Words and Phrases - Glazing and polishing Issues Involved:1. Classification of the tiles manufactured by the appellant.2. Liability of the appellant to pay differential duty.3. Whether the notice demanding duty is barred by limitation.4. Applicability of the extended period under Section 11A.5. Imposition of penalty and confiscation of manufacturing assets.Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of the Tiles Manufactured by the Appellant:The primary issue is the classification of the ceramic tiles, specifically whether the polished tiles are to be classified as glazed tiles under Heading 6906.10 or unglazed tiles under Heading 6905. The Department contended that the polished tiles, having a shiny and glossy surface, should be classified as glazed tiles due to the presence of materials like soda feldspar, potash feldspar, and quartz, which result in a glaze. The appellant argued that glazing must be an external process applied after the tiles are formed, citing various technical definitions and literature to support their claim.2. Liability of the Appellant to Pay Differential Duty:The Department issued a notice proposing to recover differential duty on the grounds that the polished tiles were glazed and thus attracted a higher duty rate of 30% ad valorem compared to 25% for unglazed tiles. The Commissioner confirmed the demand for duty and imposed penalties, including a redemption fine.3. Whether the Notice Demanding Duty is Barred by Limitation:The notice dated 20-10-1998 proposed to recover duty for tiles cleared between 30-10-1995 and 31-8-1998, invoking the extended period under Section 11A. The appellant contested this, arguing that there was no suppression of facts or willful misstatement.4. Applicability of the Extended Period under Section 11A:The Commissioner justified the extended period by alleging that the appellant misled the National Test House and failed to disclose the complete manufacturing process and raw materials. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of mis-declaration or suppression of facts by the appellant. The details of the manufacturing process and raw materials were already available to the Department through earlier submissions, making the extended period inapplicable.5. Imposition of Penalty and Confiscation of Manufacturing Assets:The Commissioner imposed a penalty equal to the duty amount and a redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of the plant and machinery. The Tribunal set aside these penalties, finding no grounds for mis-declaration or suppression of facts.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the polished tiles manufactured by the appellant were not glazed tiles. Glazing must be an external process applied after the ceramic body is formed, distinct from vitrification and polishing. The Tribunal also held that the extended period under Section 11A was not applicable as there was no suppression of facts or willful misstatement by the appellant. Consequently, the demand for differential duty and the penalties imposed were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.