Page 76 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

466 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

Classification of goods - Explanatory notes to Harmonized System -
Have strong persuasive value - General trend of taking assistance of Explana-
tory Notes to resolve entry related dispute not to be departed from. [para 25]
Appeals dismissed
CASES CITED
A.P. State Electricity Board v. Collector — 1994 (70) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Referred ............................ [Para 21]
Collector v. Bakelite Hylam Ltd. — 1997 (91) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.) — Referred ........................................ [Para 6]
Collector v. Business Forms Ltd. — 2002 (142) E.L.T. 18 (S.C.) — Referred ...................................... [Para 6]
Collector v. Sterling India — 2000 (115) E.L.T. 807 (Tribunal) — Referred ............................. [Paras 18, 19]
Collector v. Swaraj Mazda — 1993 (68) E.L.T. 258 (Tribunal) — Referred ...................................... [Para 19]
Collector v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. — 1995 (77) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.) — Referred .............................. [Para 6]
Commissioner v. Wockhardt Life Sciences Ltd. — 2012 (277) E.L.T. 299 (S.C.) — Referred ........ [Para 22]
Dabur (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2005 (182) E.L.T. 290 (S.C.) — Referred ............................ [Para 20]
Holostick India Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2015 (318) E.L.T. 529 (S.C.) — Referred .......................... [Para 6]
Jyoti Carpet Industries v. Commissioner — 2001 (132) E.L.T. 458 (Tribunal) — Referred ........... [Para 19]
Plasmac Machine Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector — 1991 (51) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) — Referred ........ [Para 20]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATION CITED
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 117/28/95-CX, dated 17-4-1995 ......................................................... [Paras 12, 17]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri B. Krishna Prasad, AOR and Syed Abdul
Haseeb, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, AOR, for the Re-
spondent.
[Judgment per : Aniruddha Bose, J.]. - These two appeals against the de-
cision of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ren-
dered on 16th July, 2008 [2008 (231) E.L.T. 453 (Tri. - Del.)] require adjudication
on the question as to whether “car matting” would come within Chapter 57 of
the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 under the heading “Car-
pets and Other Textile Floor Coverings” or they would be classified under Chap-
ter 87 thereof, which relates to “Vehicles other than Railway or Tramway
Rolling Stock and Parts and Accessories Thereof”. The appeals are against a
common decision and we shall also deal with both these appeals together in this
judgment. The respondent-assessee want their goods to be placed under Chapter
Heading 5703.90. We shall refer to the specific entries against this item later in
the judgment. The respondent, at the material point of time were engaged in the
business of manufacture of textile floor coverings and car matting. The subject-
goods have been referred to interchangeably by the revenue also as car mattings
and car carpets. The respondent, at the material time, were clearing the goods
declaring them to be goods against Heading No. 5703.90.90. Effective rate of ex-
cise duty on goods under that entry was 8% and education cess at the applicable
rate for the subject period. We find this rate of duty, inter alia, from the order of
the Commissioner dealing with the first and the second show cause notices. The
rate of basic excise duty would have been 16% apart from education cess if these
goods were classified against goods specified in Heading No. 8708.99.00. Alto-
gether three show cause notices were issued against the respondent over clear-
ance of goods under the said heading. These notices required them to answer as
to why they should not be charged the differential rate of duty and interest. We
would like to point out here that in the show cause notices, the respective chapter
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  76