Tribunal Upheld Product Classification Under CETA 1985

BK. PAPER MILLS LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY

BK. PAPER MILLS LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY - 1998 (101) E.L.T. 407 (Tribunal) Issues:
1. Correct classification of the product described as 'cover paper' under sub-headings 4820.00 and 4805.90 of the CETA, 1985.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 43/86 for classification.
3. Interpretation of Chapter Note 8 (now re-numbered as Note 9) of Chapter 48.
4. Whether the product is classifiable under sub-heading No. 4805.90 or 4820.00.

Analysis:

1. The issue in question pertains to the classification of the product known as 'cover paper' under sub-headings 4820.00 and 4805.90 of the CETA, 1985. The appellants claimed classification under sub-heading 4820.00, while the Revenue classified it under sub-heading 4805.90. The Tribunal, in previous orders, upheld the classification under sub-heading 4805.90 and denied the benefit of Notification No. 43/86, which applies only if the product falls under Heading 48.20.

2. The appellants argued that the product, known commercially as 'book cover,' should be classified under sub-heading 4820.00 based on commercial parlance. They cited relevant case laws emphasizing the importance of commercial parlance and ISI specifications. The appellants contended that specific heading 48.20 should prevail over the generic heading 48.05, as per legal precedents and Rule 3(a) of the Rules of interpretation.

3. The appellants further argued that their classification lists for the cover paper were consistently approved under Heading 48.20 during the material period. They objected to the change in classification without reviewing the approved lists, stating it was impermissible. They also contended that Note 8 to Chapter 48 (now Note 9) was irrelevant as the item 'cover paper' specifically falls under Heading 48.20.

4. The Tribunal considered the rival entries under sub-headings 4805.90 and 4820.00, along with Chapter Note 8 (now Note 9) of Chapter 48. The appellants claimed that their book covers were manufactured and cleared as loose sheets, falling within the size specifications mentioned. However, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' classification under sub-heading 4805.90, emphasizing that the product being in the form of loose sheets did not align with the coverage under Heading 48.20.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, following the precedent set in previous orders and the interpretation of the Central Excise Tariff criteria. The Tribunal upheld the classification under sub-heading 4805.90 based on the specific characteristics of the product and the application of Chapter Note 8 (now 9) to Chapter 48. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from its earlier decision and dismissed the appeal accordingly.