Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 166 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - Chequered Tiles, Rockard designer Tiles, Plain cement Tiles and Paver blocks etc. - benefit of N/N. 10/2003-CE dt 1.3.2003 - It was alleged that the Respondent has cleared the Chequered Tiles, Rockard designer tiles and decorative Interlocking paver blocks which are not commercially known as “Mosaic Tiles” by misclassifying the same as “Mosaic Tiles” - Held that: - The revenue has not brought any fact on record that the tiles were not Mosaic or commercially not known as Mosaic - the dictionary meaning of “Mosaic” means a picture of decorative design made by the small coloured pieces of stones or tiles into a surface or the process of art of making such pictures or design. No adverse allegation is appearing in SCN against the Respondent that the Tiles manufactured by them do not fulfill the above criteria of Mosaic - what is important is that the goods under reference must belong to the category of Mosaic Tiles so as to eligible for exemption from duty. The term “Mosaic” is a germ and once the goods belong to the category of Mosiac, the category of goods would not debar it from the category of Mosaic. In the present case the Tiles as per the terminology used are “Chequered”, “Rockard” etc to represent them individual species of the germ “Mosaic Tiles”. If only genus is covered by the exemption and not the individual species in that case no exemption would be available where the genus is named in exemption and not the individual species. The Hon’ble Court in the case of KEDIA AGGLOMERATED MARBLES LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2003 (1) TMI 104 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] held that the Tiles in question would merit classification as ‘Mosaic Tiles’ despite the fact that the commercial name of the Tiles was not Mosaic Tiles and were sold by unique name to each product - In the present case following the same analogy of the Hon’ble Apex Court as above, it can be held that an individual tile, which has an inherent well defined visible pattern or design contributed by the marble or stone chips mixed in the cement, is without any doubt, a mosaic tile, notwithstanding the fact that the goods are marketed by the manufacturer by using the Trade Name coined by the manufacturer. The goods of the Respondent would also merit classification as “Mosaic tiles” and would be eligible for exemption - the individual name of Tiles as Chequered, Roackard or plain tiles would not exclude them from claiming exemption as the goods in question are commercially known as “Mosaic Tiles”. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|