2009 (5) TMI 220 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal rules in favor of assessee on rubberized tyre cord classification dispute

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, rejected the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeal in a case concerning the classification of ... Rubberized tyre cord warp sheet of high tenacity yarn - classification under Chapter Heading 59.02 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, or under Chapter Heading 59.06 - As regards the classification, in the light of Larger Bench decision in CCE, Bangalore v. Vikram Tyres Ltd., and the Apex Court’s decision in CCE, Goa v. M.R.F. Ltd., we hold that the goods in question falls for classification under Chapter Heading 59.06. The goods falling under this chapter heading do not attract levy of Additional Excise Duty. The benefit of captive exemption in terms of Notification No. 67/95 cannot be denied to the assessees for the reason that goods falling under Heading 59.06 are used captively in the manufacture of tyres which are leviable to Basic Excise Duty. - the appeal of the Revenue seeking denial of the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 is rejected and the appeal of the assessees seeking classification under Heading 59.06 is allowed. The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, in the case of 2009 (5) TMI 220 - CESTAT, Chennai, heard an appeal regarding the classification of rubberized tyre cord warp sheet of high tenacity yarn under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had ruled that the goods fell under Chapter Heading 59.02 and extended the benefit of captive consumption to the assessee, partly allowing both the Revenue's and the assessee's appeals. The Tribunal, after considering the Larger Bench decision in CCE, Bangalore v. Vikram Tyres Ltd. and the Supreme Court's decision in CCE, Goa v. M.R.F. Ltd., determined that the goods were correctly classified under Chapter Heading 59.06, which did not attract Additional Excise Duty. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was rejected, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The decision was dictated and pronounced in 'open court.'