2016 (12) TMI 1442 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 49/2008-CE(NT) - liquid cleaners - the goods were classifiable under Heading No.3402 but are not eligible for benefit of Notification, holding that there is a distinction between the descriptions appearing under the said Notification - Held that - the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in their own case Netway Home Products India P. Ltd. Versus Commr. of C. Ex., Bangalore-II 2016 (3) TMI 125 - CESTAT BANGALORE , where it was held that Sl. No. 40 does not cover organic surface active products, in liquid form and as such, their assessment to duty under Section 4A is not called for. The classification and eligibility to the exemption Notification needs to be reconsidered in each and every case, is a fallacious argument which needs to be rejected outrightly, and it has to be reiterated that the judgment of the higher judicial forum has to be followed unless they are set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Classification of liquid cleaners under central excise duty and eligibility for benefit of Notification No.49/2008-CE(NT).

In this case, the issue revolved around the classification of liquid cleaners for central excise duty and their eligibility for the benefit of Notification No.49/2008-CE(NT). The lower authorities classified the liquid cleaners under Heading No.3402 but denied them the benefit of the notification, resulting in the imposition of differential central excise duty, interest, and penalties on the assessee and the director. The Tribunal's decision in a previous case was cited, emphasizing that the entry under which the products fell did not cover organic surface active products in liquid form. The Tribunal held that the products should be in the form of bars, cakes, moulding pieces, or shapes to attract the specified entry. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals with consequential reliefs, citing the acceptance of its decision by the department in subsequent orders. The Tribunal rejected the argument that classification and eligibility for exemption needed to be reconsidered in each case, emphasizing the need to follow judgments of higher judicial forums unless overturned.

The Tribunal's analysis focused on the interpretation of the relevant entry for classification and the intention of the legislation regarding the specified products. It clarified that the entry did not cover organic surface active products in liquid form, emphasizing the requirement for products to be in specific forms to attract the specified entry. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of following its previous decisions, which had attained finality and had been accepted by the department in subsequent orders. It rejected the argument for reconsideration of classification and exemption eligibility in each case, emphasizing the binding nature of higher judicial forum judgments unless overturned. The Tribunal ultimately set aside the lower authorities' decision and allowed the appeals, providing consequential reliefs as applicable.