2000 (4) TMI 572 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Correct classification of instrumentation charts under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
2. Interpretation of Chapter Note 11 to Chapter 48.
3. Applicability of Chapter Heading 49.01 versus 48.23.
4. Relevance of HSN Explanatory Notes.
5. Applicability of case law and precedents.
6. Determination of whether the printing on the charts is primary or incidental.
7. Time-barred demand beyond the normal period of six months.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Correct Classification of Instrumentation Charts:
The primary issue in these appeals is the classification of instrumentation charts. The appellants argue for classification under Chapter sub-heading 4901.90, asserting that the charts are products of the printing industry. In contrast, the Revenue classifies them under sub-heading 4823.90, stating that the printing is incidental to their primary use.

2. Interpretation of Chapter Note 11 to Chapter 48:
Chapter Note 11 to Chapter 48 states that printed paper products fall under Chapter 49 if the printing is not merely incidental to their primary use. The Tribunal had to determine whether the printing on the instrumentation charts is primary or merely incidental. The charts are used for recording variables like temperature and pressure in industrial installations. The Tribunal concluded that the printing on the charts is incidental to their primary use of recording data.

3. Applicability of Chapter Heading 49.01 versus 48.23:
The appellants argued that the charts should be classified under Chapter Heading 49.01 as products of the printing industry. However, the Tribunal found that these charts are used for recording data in industrial processes, which does not align with the products covered under Chapter 49.01. Instead, the Tribunal upheld the classification under Heading 48.23, which includes other paper products.

4. Relevance of HSN Explanatory Notes:
The Tribunal considered the HSN Explanatory Notes, which have persuasive value. Heading 4823.40 of the HSN covers "rolls, sheets and charts, printed for self-recording apparatus," indicating that such charts fall under Heading 48.23. Since the Central Excise Tariff does not have a specific entry for these charts, they fall under the residuary Entry 4823.90.

5. Applicability of Case Law and Precedents:
The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the Supreme Court's decision in Metagraphs P. Ltd. v. CCE, where printed aluminium labels were classified as products of the printing industry. The Tribunal noted that in the present case, the printing on the charts is incidental and does not communicate information to customers. The Tribunal also referenced other case laws, including Garden Silk Mills Ltd. v. CCE and Lakshmi Cements v. CCE, to support its decision.

6. Determination of Whether the Printing on the Charts is Primary or Incidental:
The Tribunal concluded that the printing on the instrumentation charts is incidental to their primary use of recording data. This conclusion was supported by the appellants' own product literature, which stated that the charts are not products of the printing industry.

7. Time-Barred Demand Beyond the Normal Period of Six Months:
The Vice President noted that the appellants had filed classification lists and there was no suppression or misstatement of facts. Therefore, the demand beyond the normal period of six months was time-barred. However, the Tribunal ultimately upheld the classification under sub-heading 4823.90 and rejected the appeal.

Majority Order:
The majority held that the instrumentation charts are correctly classified under CET-Sub-heading 4823.90, upholding the impugned orders and rejecting the appeals.