1998 (9) TMI 203 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of "Copper Phthalocyanine Crude (CPC)" under sub-heading 3204.19 or sub-heading 3204.11 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.

Analysis:
The appeal filed by Revenue questioned the classification of the product "Copper Phthalocyanine Crude (CPC)" manufactured by M/s. Shiv Dye Stuff & Intermediate Industries under sub-heading 3204.19 as claimed by the Respondents or under sub-heading 3204.11 of the Tariff as suggested by the Revenue. The initial classification by the Respondents was under sub-heading 3204.19, but the Assistant Commissioner reclassified it under sub-heading 3204.11 due to purity and residue concerns. The Chief Chemist's opinion stated that for a product to be considered ready to use, it should have a certain purity level and particle size. The dispute arose from conflicting test reports regarding the purity and readiness of the product. The Assistant Commissioner upheld the reclassification and imposed Central Excise Duty, leading to an appeal by the assessee.

The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order, emphasizing the importance of multiple test reports favoring the assessee. The Respondents argued that the product was ready for use as it was a standardized product requiring no further processing. They highlighted the practical aspects of using CPC directly as a pigment and disputed the reliance on certain test reports due to the timing of sample drawal and procedural issues. The Respondents contended that the impugned product should be classified under sub-heading 3204.19 based on the preponderance of evidence in their favor.

In the final analysis, the Tribunal considered the absence of samples drawn during the relevant period and the conflicting test reports. The Chief Chemist's opinion on product readiness based on purity and particle size was pivotal. The Tribunal noted the differing purity levels and residue percentages in various test reports, with some supporting the readiness of the product. The Assistant Commissioner's observation that the manufacturing process remained consistent until the sample drawal further supported the Respondents' claim. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing the importance of multiple test reports and the principle of benefiting the assessee in case of doubt. The appeal by Revenue was rejected based on the preponderance of evidence in favor of the Respondents.