TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Classification of Cellulose Sponge:</h1> The Tribunal upheld the classification of Cellulose Sponge under CET sub-heading 3926.90 instead of 96.03, rejecting the appellants' argument that it ... Classification Issues: Classification of Cellulose Sponge under CET sub-heading 3926.90 or 96.03Classification under CET sub-heading 3926.90:The appellants, manufacturers of various products, developed a process for manufacturing Cellulose Sponge and initially classified it under CET sub-heading 3926.90. The Assistant Collector approved this classification, rejecting the contention that the product was a mop falling under Heading 96.03. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal.Manufacturing Process and Contentions:The process for manufacturing Cellulose Sponge involves mixing rayon fibers and sodium sulfate decahydrate, extruding the mixture into sheets with cotton gauze, coagulating and regenerating the mass, washing, and treating with Magnesium Chloride. The appellants marketed the product as 'WONDER WIPE' for domestic cleaning purposes. They argued that the product, known as a mop in the market, should be classified under Heading 96.03 as it meets the criteria of domestic goods used daily in a household, despite lacking a handle.Opposing Argument and Decision:The learned DR referred to HSN Explanatory Notes defining a mop as textile cords or vegetable fibers mounted on a handle. Aligning with Chapter 96 of the Central Excise Tariff, the DR contended that the product in question, being a handle-less sponge, does not qualify as a mop under Heading 96.03. The Tribunal concurred, citing dictionary definitions of a mop as absorbent material fastened to a handle. They emphasized that the goods under dispute do not align with those under Heading 96.03. Rejecting the appellants' reliance on Rule 3 of the Interpretation Rules, the Tribunal concluded that the goods were classifiable solely under Heading 3926.90, finding no error in the lower authorities' decision and dismissing the appeal.This detailed analysis outlines the classification dispute regarding the Cellulose Sponge and the reasoning behind the Tribunal's decision to uphold its classification under CET sub-heading 3926.90 rather than 96.03, based on the nature and use of the product as discussed during the proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
