M/S. Pragati Silicons
Limited Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Panchkula [2009] INSC 618 (25 March 2009)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1991 OF 2006 M/s. Pragati
Silicons (P) Ltd. ....Appellant Versus Commissioner of Central Excise,
Panchkula ....Respondent (With Civil Appeal No.3248 of 2006)
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1.
These
two appeals are directed against the judgment of the Customs Excise and Service
Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short `CESTAT'). Two issues were raised
before the Tribunal; one related to the excise classification and the other
related to the exemption claimed in regard to nameplate, emblems and logo of
plastic manufactured by M/s Pragati Silicons (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to
as the `assessee'), while appellant claimed classification under Heading
no.87.08 and 87.14 (parts and accessories of motor vehicles) along with
exemption in terms of notification no.15/94 as amended, Revenue with reference
to the products in Heading no.39.26 (articles of plastic). CESTAT referred to
an earlier decision in the assessee's case and held that Chapter 39.26 should
be correct heading. This part of the decision is questioned by the assessee in
CA No.1991/2006. So far as the claim of exemption is concerned, the Tribunal
took the view relying on an earlier decision in the case of N.M. Nagpal Pvt. Ltd.
v. CCE (2001) 130 ELT 359 that the exemption is available to the assessee. That
part is challenged by the Revenue in Civil Appeal No.3248 of 2006.
2.
Learned
counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision in the assessee's case
in Civil Appeal No.5445 of 2001 decided on 26.4.2007 (2007) 211 ELT 534 (SC)
holding that the plastic name plates are "parts and accessories" of
motor vehicles and since they are not excluded from Section XVII, the
appropriate classification is under Headings 87.08 and 87.14.
3.
Learned
counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, relied on a decision of this Court
in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. N.M. Nagpal (P) Ltd. (2008 (222)
ELT 486 SC) remitting the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. CESTAT
has relied upon this decision.
4.
In
view of the aforesaid decisions we think it appropriate to remit the matter to
the CESTAT to consider the afresh taking into account both the decisions
referred to above.
5.
The
appeals are accordingly disposed of.
........................................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
..........................................J.
Back
