Rajshree Laminates Ltd. VS Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy

The summary encompasses a legal dispute regarding the classification of a product brought forth by the petitioner against an order issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The petitioner claims to manufacture decorative laminated sheets and contends that the product should be classified under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, specifically under either Chapter Heading 4823.90 or Chapter Heading 3920.31. However, there’s a disagreement regarding whether the product should be classified under Chapter 48 or Chapter 39.

The matter was brought before the court, with the petitioner being one of the parties in previous related cases. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise had issued an order dated [date missing] that was subsequently confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) on November 15, 2002. The central issue revolves around the proper classification of the product manufactured by the petitioner.

The writ petition discussed here challenges an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) dated 15.11.2002, which confirmed an earlier order by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Pollachi, dated 24.11.1998.

The crux of the matter revolves around the classification of a product handled by the petitioner. They claim to be manufacturers of decorative laminated sheets and argue that the product should be classified under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, entitling them to benefits under either Chapter Heading 4823.90 or Chapter Heading 3920.31.

There’s a history of legal proceedings surrounding this classification issue. Initially, the goods were classified under Heading 3920.31 by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. Subsequently, due to budgetary changes in the 1993-94 budget, the classification was re-evaluated, and the petitioner filed a classification list dated 02.04.1993, which was modified by the Assistant Collector. This led to the filing of writ petitions against the modified classification and subsequent duty demands.

During the hearing of these writ petitions and connected matters, it was revealed that the Collector had reconsidered the classification issue and accepted the petitioner’s plea to classify the goods under Chapter Heading 48. Consequently, the writ petitions were deemed infructuous and dismissed on 22.03.1996. It was clarified that the petitioner would benefit from the Collector’s order classifying the goods under Chapter Heading 48, specifically under Heading 4823.90.

A similar issue arose later concerning another show cause notice dated 10.12.1993, prompting an appeal by the petitioner.

The case at hand involves a dispute over the classification of a product manufactured by the petitioner for the purpose of Central Excise duty. The petitioner argues that their product, decorative laminated sheets, should be classified under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, specifically under Chapter Heading 4823.90 or under Chapter Heading 3920.31. However, there is a disagreement regarding whether the classification should fall under Chapter 48 or Chapter 39.

Previously, there were legal proceedings regarding this matter, where the Assistant Collector of Central Excise classified the goods under Heading 3920.31. This decision was challenged, leading to a remand for fresh consideration. Subsequently, due to budgetary changes, the petitioner filed a classification list, which was modified by the Assistant Collector. Writ petitions were filed against this modification and subsequent duty demands.

During the hearing of these writ petitions and related cases, the respondent stated that the petitioner’s plea for classifying the goods under Chapter Heading 48 had been accepted, based on a Collector’s letter. As a result, the writ petitions were dismissed, and it was clarified that the petitioner would benefit under Heading 4823.90.

However, another issue arose concerning a show cause notice dated 10.12.1993, where the Appellate Authority held that the petitioner’s product is classifiable under sub-heading 4823.90 and not under 3920.31. This decision became final.

The Court’s previous order on March 22, 1996, granted the petitioner the benefit under Heading 4823.90 for the relevant years. However, a subsequent decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Backlite Highlamp Ltd classified a similar product under Chapter Heading 39. Consequently, the first respondent in the current case, following the Supreme Court’s decision, determined that the correct classification is under Chapter Heading 39.

It is noteworthy that for the period up to the date of the Court order, a decision had already been made granting the petitioner the benefit under Chapter Heading 4823.90. This decision was also affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the petitioner’s own case.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:                         

Read Another Case Law:                                      

GST Case law: