Shree Lamitex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Shree Lamitex Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jul 24, 2001

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/24626

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/24626
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Jul 24, 2001
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shree Lamitex Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Legal References

Reported In: (2001)(134)ELT556Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....that the appellant manufactured. the product consists of a layer of kraft paper, which is bonded by means of coating of low density polyethylene with a layer of high density polyethylene fabric. the laminated product is used, we are told manufacture of bags.2. the goods have been classified by the assistant commissioner (division-iii, vadodara) whose order has been confirmed by the commissioner (appeals), under heading 3926.90. the heading 3926.00 is for other articles of plastics and articles of other materials of heading 39.01 to 39.14. the appellant's claim is for classification under heading 4811.30 as "paper and paper board coated, impregnated or covered with plastics".3. after hearing both sides, we are not able to accept the classification decided by the department. for one thing these sheets of composite fabric of plastic and paper cannot be called articles of plastics. even if they were to be classifiable in chapter 39, the heading 3926 would not apply, since these are clearly not recognizable articles. these is however a graver objection. composite fabrics of plastic and paper may be classifiable under chapter 39 or chapter 48, depending upon the thickness of the paper and plastics. if the thickness of the paper is more than half, it would be classifiable under chapter 48; if it is less than half it would be classifiable under chapter 39. (this raises a question as to classification of a product in which both are of equal thickness. not clear answer is forthcoming.) this is the view expressed in the explanatory note to the harmonized system of nomenclature while dealing with chapter 39, and also contained in note 1(f) to chapter 48. this is also the view that has been communicated by the board in its circular no.6/89 dated 16.1.1989. paragraph 3(d) of the circular applies note 1(f) of chapter 40 to printed plastic laminated with paper. obviously the same conclusion would apply whether the sheets are printed or not since printing has not bearing on.....

Full Judgment

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of a composite product that the appellant manufactured. The product consists of a layer of kraft paper, which is bonded by means of coating of low density polyethylene with a layer of high density polyethylene fabric. The laminated product is used, we are told manufacture of bags.

2. The goods have been classified by the Assistant Commissioner (Division-III, Vadodara) whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), under heading 3926.90. The heading 3926.00 is for other articles of plastics and articles of other materials of heading 39.01 to 39.14. The appellant's claim is for classification under heading 4811.30 as "paper and paper board coated, impregnated or covered with plastics".

3. After hearing both sides, we are not able to accept the classification decided by the department. For one thing these sheets of composite fabric of plastic and paper cannot be called articles of plastics. Even if they were to be classifiable in chapter 39, the heading 3926 would not apply, since these are clearly not recognizable articles. These is however a graver objection. Composite fabrics of plastic and paper may be classifiable under chapter 39 or chapter 48, depending upon the thickness of the paper and plastics. If the thickness of the paper is more than half, it would be classifiable under chapter 48; if it is less than half it would be classifiable under chapter 39. (This raises a question as to classification of a product in which both are of equal thickness. Not clear answer is forthcoming.) This is the view expressed in the Explanatory Note to the Harmonized System of Nomenclature while dealing with chapter 39, and also contained in note 1(f) to chapter 48. This is also the view that has been communicated by the Board in its circular no.6/89 dated 16.1.1989. Paragraph 3(d) of the circular applies note 1(f) of chapter 40 to printed plastic laminated with paper. Obviously the same conclusion would apply whether the sheets are printed or not since printing has not bearing on the composition of the material. The departmental representative cannot argue against the circular.

4. The departmental representative emphasizes the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding that note 1(f) to chapter 48 refers to paper coated with layer of plastics. However this ignores the reference in the note to paper covered with the layer of plastics which, in our opinion, describes the product under consideration. In the light of this discussion, we are of the view that the goods are correctly classifiable under chapter 48.

5. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside.

Consequential relief.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Shree Lamitex Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Same Subject Education