9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise Tariff Schedule. The appellants cleared the goods on payment of the duty so assessed. Later on, however, they filed a refund claim before the Assistant Collector contending that the goods were correctly assessable under Heading No. 84.34 of the Customs Tariff Schedule and that no additional duty was leviable since similar goods were not manufactured in India. The Assistant Collector relied upon the examination report and notings on the reverse of the original Bill of Entry to the effect that the goods were found to be plastic sheets and, on this basis, he held that the classification under Heading No. 39.01/07 was in order. He also rejected the claim that the goods did not attract any additional duty on the ground that the imported goods fell under the tariff description in Item No. 15A(2)-CET. The Appellants preferred an appeal against this order. The Appellate Collector of Customs, after observing that the plates in question were specially prepared for printing puposes, accepted the appellants' contention that goods fell for classification under Heading No. 84.34 of the Customs Tariff Schedule and allowed consequential relief to the appellants. However, in so far as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he circumstances, the proper classification of the goods for additional duty purposes was under Item No. 68-CET. 5. The learned Consultant said that he could not take the position (taken in the appeal memorandum) that no additional duty was at all chargeable on the subject goods on the ground that like articles were not manufactured in India. 6. In his reply, the learned Department Representative submitted that- (i) the appellants themselves seem to have classified the goods in the Bill of Entry under Heading No. 38.01/06 which the assessing officer would appear to have amended to read is 39.07; (ii) the appellants apparently did not protest against the assessment at the time of examination and classification of the goods; (iii) in the refund application; the appellants had not taken up the plea that the goods did not fall under 15A(2)-CET but only that no additional duty was leviable because like goods were not manufactured in India; (iv) from the manufacturer's literature at pages 20 to 22 of the paper book, it would be clear that the goods were really in the nature of photographic plates and the correct classification would, therefore, be Heading 37.01/08. Howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht in order to get stability, it is, therefore, abundantly clear that the imported goods are photo-sensitive printing plates as is also apparent from the nomenclature given to them by the manufacturers : "Photosensitive Nylon Printing Plates". As seen from the CCCN Explanatory Notes on page 1281 (Volume 3) under Heading 84.34, sensitised plates (e.g., consisting of metal or artificial plastic material, coated with a sensitised photographic emulsion, or of a sheet of photo-sensitive artificial plastic material, whether or not affixed to a support of metal or other material) are excluded from the purview of the said Heading and are shown to fall under Heading 37.01. If we turn to the Explanatory Notes under Heading 37.01 (page 528 volume 2), it is seen that, among the goods included under the said Heading, are printing plates which are not coated with an emulsion but consisting wholly or essentially of photo-sensitive artificial plastic material. They may be affixed to a support of metal or other material. It thus appears to us that the more appropriate classification for the subject printing plates may have been Heading 37.01/08 rather than 84.34. We are not, however, required to an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Photo-sensitive plate or sheet. In either view of the matter and having regard to the view just expressed, namely, that the subject printing plates cannot be said tobe "articles of plastics" as comprehended in Item 15A(2)-CET, the only other possible classification would be Item No. 68-CET as "All other goods, not elsewhere specified". The appellants are not contending before us, as they contended before the lower authorities, that the goods are not at all liable to additional duty of Customs on the ground that like articles are not manufactured in India. 10. We have carefully perused the decisions cited by the learned Department Representative. In 1981 Vol. No. E.L.T. 653 (Guj.), the articles in dispute were plastic bangles made out of methyl methacrylate monomer. The Court held that since the raw material was a monomer and not a plastic material (although by subjecting the monomer to a polymerisation process), the plastic bangles made out of the monomer would not be liable to duty under Item 15A of the Central Excise Tariff. We do not see how this decision is relevant in the present case where we are concerned with a composite article. In 1981 Vol. No. E.L.T. 734 (Bom.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
