M/s. Pragati Silicons (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.1991 of 2006
[With Civil Appeal No. 3248 of 2006]
[From the Judgement and Order No. 38/06 -EX dated 05.01.2006 in Appeal No. E/521 /04-EX by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi]
[With Civil Appeal No. 3248 of 2006]
[From the Judgement and Order No. 38/06 -EX dated 05.01.2006 in Appeal No. E/521 /04-EX by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi]
Petitioner: M/s. Pragati Silicons (P) Ltd.
Respondent: Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.1991 of 2006
[With Civil Appeal No. 3248 of 2006]
[From the Judgement and Order No. 38/06 -EX dated 05.01.2006 in Appeal No. E/521 /04-EX by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi]
[With Civil Appeal No. 3248 of 2006]
[From the Judgement and Order No. 38/06 -EX dated 05.01.2006 in Appeal No. E/521 /04-EX by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi]
Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 25, 2009
Appearances:
Appearances
Mr. M.P. Devantha, Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates for the Petitioners.
Mr. A.K. Panda, Senior Advocate, Mrs. Anita Sahani, Mrs. A. Annapoorni, Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Mr. M.P. Devanath, Advocates with him for the Respondents.
Mr. M.P. Devantha, Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates for the Petitioners.
Mr. A.K. Panda, Senior Advocate, Mrs. Anita Sahani, Mrs. A. Annapoorni, Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Mr. M.P. Devanath, Advocates with him for the Respondents.
Head Note:
Excise
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Heading 87.08, 87.14 Notification No. 15/94 and Heading 39.26 Classification Nameplate, emblems and logo of plastic Manufacturing of Exemption of the said goods Making reference to the earlier decision of the same assessee heading 39.26 held to be the correct heading If the plastic nameplates etc. are parts of accessories of motor vehicles and are classifiable under heading 87.08 and 87.14 Assessee relying upon 130 ELT 359 for claiming exemption and 211 ELT 534 for classification Revenue on the other hand relying upon 222 ELT 486 for remitting the matter to the Tribunal. Held, that matter is remitted to the Tribunal to consider a fresh decision after taking into account both the decisions referred above. (Paras 1 to 4)
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Heading 87.08, 87.14 Notification No. 15/94 and Heading 39.26 Classification Nameplate, emblems and logo of plastic Manufacturing of Exemption of the said goods Making reference to the earlier decision of the same assessee heading 39.26 held to be the correct heading If the plastic nameplates etc. are parts of accessories of motor vehicles and are classifiable under heading 87.08 and 87.14 Assessee relying upon 130 ELT 359 for claiming exemption and 211 ELT 534 for classification Revenue on the other hand relying upon 222 ELT 486 for remitting the matter to the Tribunal. Held, that matter is remitted to the Tribunal to consider a fresh decision after taking into account both the decisions referred above. (Paras 1 to 4)
Cases Reffered:
1. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. N.M. Nagpal (P) Ltd. [2008 (222) ELT 486 SC] (Para 3)
2. N.M. Nagpal Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE [2001 (130) ELT 359] (Para 1)
3. Civil Appeal No. 5445 of 2001 [2007 (211) ELT 534] (SC) (Para 2)
2. N.M. Nagpal Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE [2001 (130) ELT 359] (Para 1)
3. Civil Appeal No. 5445 of 2001 [2007 (211) ELT 534] (SC) (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short `CESTAT’). Two issues were raised before the Tribunal; one related to the excise classification and the other related to the exemption claimed in regard to nameplate, emblems and logo of plastic manufactured by M/s Pragati Silicons (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the `assessee’), while appellant claimed classification under Heading no.87.08 and 87.14 (parts and accessories of motor vehicles) along with exemption in terms of notification no.15/94 as amended, Revenue with reference to the products in Heading no.39.26 (articles of plastic). CESTAT referred to an earlier decision in the assessee’s case and held that Chapter 39.26 should be correct heading. This part of the decision is questioned by the assessee in CA No.1991/2006. So far as the claim of exemption is concerned, the Tribunal took the view relying on an earlier decision in the case of N.M. Nagpal Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE [2001 (130) ELT 359] that the exemption is available to the assessee. That part is challenged by the Revenue in Civil Appeal No.3248 of 2006.
2. Learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision in the assessee’s case in Civil Appeal No. 5445 of 2001 decided on 26.4.2007 [2007 (211) ELT 534] (SC) holding that the plastic name plates are ‘parts and accessories’ of motor vehicles and since they are not excluded from Section XVII, the appropriate classification is under Headings 87.08 and 87.14.
3. Learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, relied on a decision of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. N.M. Nagpal (P) Ltd. [2008 (222) ELT 486 SC] remitting the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. CESTAT has relied upon this decision.
4. In view of the aforesaid decisions we think it appropriate to remit the matter to the CESTAT to consider the afresh taking into account both the decisions referred to above.
5. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
*************
1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short `CESTAT’). Two issues were raised before the Tribunal; one related to the excise classification and the other related to the exemption claimed in regard to nameplate, emblems and logo of plastic manufactured by M/s Pragati Silicons (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the `assessee’), while appellant claimed classification under Heading no.87.08 and 87.14 (parts and accessories of motor vehicles) along with exemption in terms of notification no.15/94 as amended, Revenue with reference to the products in Heading no.39.26 (articles of plastic). CESTAT referred to an earlier decision in the assessee’s case and held that Chapter 39.26 should be correct heading. This part of the decision is questioned by the assessee in CA No.1991/2006. So far as the claim of exemption is concerned, the Tribunal took the view relying on an earlier decision in the case of N.M. Nagpal Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE [2001 (130) ELT 359] that the exemption is available to the assessee. That part is challenged by the Revenue in Civil Appeal No.3248 of 2006.
2. Learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision in the assessee’s case in Civil Appeal No. 5445 of 2001 decided on 26.4.2007 [2007 (211) ELT 534] (SC) holding that the plastic name plates are ‘parts and accessories’ of motor vehicles and since they are not excluded from Section XVII, the appropriate classification is under Headings 87.08 and 87.14.
3. Learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, relied on a decision of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. N.M. Nagpal (P) Ltd. [2008 (222) ELT 486 SC] remitting the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. CESTAT has relied upon this decision.
4. In view of the aforesaid decisions we think it appropriate to remit the matter to the CESTAT to consider the afresh taking into account both the decisions referred to above.
5. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
*************
