Collector of Central Excise Vs. Jai Laminates Ltd.

Collector of Central Excise vs Jai Laminates Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Apr 10, 1997

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/11038

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/11038
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Apr 10, 1997
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Jai Laminates Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (1997)(93)ELT368TriDel

Excerpt

1. this is an appeal filed by the department against the impugned order passed by the collector of central excise (appeals), bombay.2. the short point to be considered in the instant case is whether decorative laminated sheets manufactured by the respondents is classifiable under chapter 39 as per the department or under chapter 48 as claimed by the assessee. the collector (appeals) decided the issue in favour of the party holding that this item is classifiable under chapter 48.3. when the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. however, they have requested to decide the case on merits.in their written submissions, it was submitted by them that item in question is classifiable under sub-heading no. 4823.90 and prior to 28-2-1988 it was classifiable under 4818.90 in view of the number of decisions of the tribunal including the case of cce v. waldekar laminates (p) ltd. reported in 1990 (47) e.l.t. 610.5. we have carefully considered the matter. we find that the very issue had come up for consideration before the supreme court in the case of cce, hyderabad v. bakelite hylam ltd. reported in 1997 (91) e.l.t. 13, wherein it was held that "being a composite material (paper 60% to 70%, synthetic resin 30% to 40%), rule 3(b) of rules of interpretation relevant and since essential character of the product, i.e., its rigidity or strength and its resistance to heat and moisture, is imparted by resins and not paper, the product more appropriately classifiable under chapter 39, sub-heading 3920.31/3920.37, and not under chapter 48, sub-heading 4818.90/4823.90 of central excise tariff act, 1985. this conclusion also supported by explanatory note (d) to chapter 39 of hsn - pre-dominance of paper in the product of no consequence since the rule of pre-dominance in note 1 (f) to chapter 48 applies to paper reinforced stratified plastic sheeting, or one layer of paper or paperboard coated or covered with a layer of plastics which laminated sheets (layers of.....

Full Judgment

1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the impugned order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.

2. The short point to be considered in the instant case is whether decorative laminated sheets manufactured by the respondents is classifiable under Chapter 39 as per the department or under Chapter 48 as claimed by the assessee. The Collector (Appeals) decided the issue in favour of the party holding that this item is classifiable under Chapter 48.

3. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. However, they have requested to decide the case on merits.

In their written submissions, it was submitted by them that item in question is classifiable under sub-heading No. 4823.90 and prior to 28-2-1988 it was classifiable under 4818.90 in view of the number of decisions of the Tribunal including the case of CCE v. Waldekar Laminates (P) Ltd. reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 610.

5. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that the very issue had come up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Bakelite Hylam Ltd. reported in 1997 (91) E.L.T. 13, wherein it was held that "Being a composite material (Paper 60% to 70%, synthetic resin 30% to 40%), Rule 3(b) of Rules of Interpretation relevant and since essential character of the product, i.e., its rigidity or strength and its resistance to heat and moisture, is imparted by resins and not paper, the product more appropriately classifiable under Chapter 39, sub-heading 3920.31/3920.37, and not under Chapter 48, sub-heading 4818.90/4823.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. This conclusion also supported by Explanatory note (d) to Chapter 39 of HSN - Pre-dominance of paper in the product of no consequence since the rule of pre-dominance in Note 1 (f) to Chapter 48 applies to paper reinforced stratified plastic sheeting, or one layer of paper or paperboard coated or covered with a layer of plastics which laminated sheets (layers of resin impregnated paper pressed under a hydraulic press, applying heat and pressure) are not - ." Accordingly the Tribunal order has been reversed. In view of the finding of the Supreme Court, following the ratio, we accept the contention of the Revenue and accordingly item in question is classifiable under Chapter 39 and not under Chapter 48. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and in the result appeal filed by the department is hereby allowed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Collector of Central Excise vs Jai Laminates Ltd. Same Subject MRTP