Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + Commissioner Central Excise - 2010 (1) TMI Commissioner This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (1) TMI 1046 - Commissioner - Central ExciseClassification of goods - Refund claim - case of appellant is that the goods being manufactured by them were wrongly classified under Chapter 48 as dutiable goods whereas, the goods being manufactured by them were the “Documents of Title” falling under Chapter 49, which were exempted from Central Excise duty and the duty paid by them was liable to be refunded to them - CBEC Circular No. 11/91-CX. 4 dated 15-10-1991. Classification of goods - whether the products being manufactured by the appellant and enclosed as sample No. 1 to 8 are liable to be classified under Chapter 48 or Chapter 49? - Held that:- “Heading 4901, being identically worded as Chapter 49 in HSN and Central Excise Tariff Act, will, in the absence of anything contrary in Chapter and Section Notes, have the same scope as Chapter 49, HSN. It will cover all articles falling in any of the Headings of Chapter 49, HSN. Therefore, products having fiduciary value in excess of the intrinsic value, like cheques, forms, bond, share certificate, stamp impressed postal stationery, documents of title, etc., will be covered by Sub-heading 4901.90, CETA. Similarly, tickets, printed circulars, letters, forms etc. which are essentially printed matter requiring filling up of only minor details, would be covered by Sub-heading 4901.90.” But, at the same time it is pertinent to mention that at the material time when this circular was issued, the Chapter 49 was containing only one Chapter Heading that is 4901 and the Chapter 49 was not aligned with the HSN whereas, the present status is that the said Chapter 49 is totally aligned with HSN therefore, classifying the documents of title under CH No. 4901, in terms of the circular will not be justified. The appellant’s contention that their products fall under Chapter 49 is correct and liable to be up-held. Refund of duty - Held that:- The appellant has not produced any document or the record as evidence to show that which goods were cleared by them during the relevant period. They have also failed to submit any reasoning or any record or document that proves that the goods cleared during the relevant period did not attract Central Excise duty. In absence of any proper reason or evidence on record, the refund claimed for earlier period cannot be held as admissible to the appellant and is liable to be turned down - the refund claimed by the appellant is not admissible to them. Appeal allowed in part.
|