SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Deepak Gupta, Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III – APPELLANT
VERSUS
M/S. UNI PRODUCTS INDIA LTD. – RESPONDENT
Civil Appeal Nos. 302-303 of 2009
Decided on : 01-05-2020
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – Chapter 57 – Rate of excise duty – Whether car mats come under chapter-heading 57.03 or not – Popular meaning among consumers would be a major factor for interpretation of dispute relating to classification – “The common parlance test”, “marketability test”, “popular meaning test” are all tools for interpretation to arrive at a decision on proper classification of a tariff entry - These tests, however, would be required to be applied if a particular tariff entry is capable of being classified in more than one heads – Chapter 87 of Central Excise Tariff of India does not contain car mats as an independent tariff entry – Subject-item does not satisfy third condition specified in Section XVII of Explanatory Notes in relation to “III-Parts and Accessories” – Tribunal on detailed analysis on various entries, Rules and Notes have found they fit description of goods under chapter heading 570390.90 – Once subject goods are found to come within ambit of that sub-heading, for sole reason that they are exclusively made for cars and not for “home use” (in broad terms), those goods cannot be transplanted to residual entry against heading 8708 – As subject-goods come under chapter-heading 570390.90, and the other entry under same Chapter forming subject of dispute in second order of Commissioner, there is no necessity to import “common parlance” test or any other similar device of construction for identifying position of these goods against relevant tariff entries – Impugned decision of Tribunal sustained. (Paras 20, 22, 23, 25, 26 and 27)
Facts of the Case:
These two appeals against the decision of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) rendered on 16th July, 2008 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 “Carpets and Other Textile Floor Coverings” or they would be classified under Chapter 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. Core issue in these appeals is as to whether car mats come under chapter-heading 57.03 or not.
Findings of the Court:
The HSN Explanatory Notes dealing with interpretation of the rules specifically exclude “tufted textile carpets, identifiable for use in motor cars” from 87.08 and place them under heading 57.03. Revenue’s argument is that the Explanatory Notes have persuasive value only. But the level or quality of such persuasive value is very strong. Once subject goods are found to come within the ambit of that sub-heading, for the sole reason that they are exclusively made for cars and not for “home use” (in broad terms), those goods cannot be transplanted to the residual entry against the heading 8708.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Aniruddha Bose, J.
These two appeals against the decision of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) rendered on 16th July, 2008 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 "Carpets and Other Textile Floor Coverings" or they would be classified under Chapter 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.570390.90. Effective rate of excise 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. Altogether three show-cause-notices were issued against the respondent over clearance 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 sub-headings have been referred to as 8708.99.00 and 570390.90 and in the order of the Tribunal also, the sub-headings have been referred to as such. But the authorities themselves in certain places described the sub-headings in shorter numerical forms, as 5703.90 and 8708.00. We find these minor variations in the paper-book. But this variation of the subheadings represented in numerical form is not of any significance so far as adjudication of these appeals are concerned. The respondent were also to answer as to why penalty should not be imposed upon them in terms of Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Rules made thereunder. The first show-cause notice is dated 9th August, 2005 in regard to clearance of goods made during the period between 9th July, 2004 and 31st March, 2005. They had cleared altogether 8,65,777 pieces of those items in different sizes in that period. The second show-cause notice was issued on 2nd May, 2006 and related to clearance of 12,02,482 pieces of the same goods for the period between 1st April, 2005 and 31st January, 2006. The third show-cause notice is of 7th March, 2007 and the clearance involved 20,15,412 pieces from 1st February, 2006 to 31st January, 2007. For the period involved in the third show-cause notice, clearance was made by the respondent under Chapter sub-heading no.570500.19, which carried effective rate of duty @8%.
2. By the time the third show-cause notice was issued, the adjudicating authority of first instance (Commissioner Central Excise, Delhi III) had passed the order against the respondent on 29th September, 2006, upon considering their responses to the said two show-cause notices. In this judgment, we shall mainly refer to this order, while examining the decision of the Tribunal. The authorities' stand has been that the subject-items ought to be classified under sub-heading 8708.99.00. Against chapter heading 8708, the goods described are "parts and accesso
CCE vs. Wood Craft Products Ltd. [(1995) 3 SCC 454] – Referred [Para 6]
Collector of Central Excise vs. Bakelite Hylam [1997 (91) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.)] – Referred [Para 6]
Collector of Customs vs. Business Forms Ltd. [(2005) 7 SCC 143] – Referred [Para 6]
Holostick India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [(2015) 7 SCC 401] – Referred [Para 6]
Collector of Central Excise vs. Swaraj Mazda [(1993) 68 ELT 258] – Distinguished [Para 19]
Jyoti Carpet Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Plasmac Machine Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay
Dabur India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
A.P. State Electricity Board vs. Collector of Central Excise
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.