LexCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA versus MIS. KITPLY INDUSTRIES LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 11 S.C.R. 219 COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA v. MIS. KITPLY INDUSTRIES LTD. (Civil Appeal No.4462 of 2003) SEPTEMBER 7, 2011. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985: A B Schedule - Heading 44. OB, sub-heading 4408. 90 - c 'Laminated panels of Particle' and 'Medium Density Fibre Board' - HELD: Are classifiable under Chapter Heading 44.08 and not under Chapter Heading 44. 06, as the products are similar to plywood and veneered panels, and after lamination assume a distinct marketability and bring about a change in D the products - Therefore, Heading 44.08 is. squarely applicable and sub-heading 4408. 90 would be the appropriate sub-heading for qlassification of the products in question .:.. Rules of interpretation of the Act - r. 3 - Interpretation of statute. Words and Phrases: Word 'similar'. occurring in the expression 'similar laminated wood' in Chapter-Heading 44.08 in the Schedule E to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Connotation of. F In the instant appeals filed by the Revenue, the question for consideration before the Court was: whether laminated panels of particle and medium density fiber board should be classified under sub- heading no. G. 4406.90 and 4407.90 or under sub-heading no. 4408.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Allowing the appeals, the Court 219 H 220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R. A HELD: 1.1. It is not in dispute that the product before the lamination is not classifiable under tariff heading 44.08 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act,. 1985. The statement of the factory manager of the assessee discloses that in the process of manufacture B of the panels, plain panels of the mother boards (plain particle/MDF fiber) are used. Papers are passed through the impregnating unit wherein the resin and other required chemicals are spread on the paper and the paper gets impregnated. The impregnated paper is further c dried and cut into required length. These paper sheets are assembled with the mother boards in such a way that the impregnated paper is placed on the upper side and one layer of impregnated design paper is placed over one layer of impregnated tissue paper. This assembly is 0 put for pressing under the required heat alid pressure and is taken out as pre-laminated boards and is ready for dispatch. The manager of the assessee has said in his statement that the panels after laminatioi:i, become water resistant and look attractive due to printed paper and brings about a change in the name, usage etc. From the E process as explained, it is clear that the products are . pre-laminated wood, most aptly falling under chapter heading 44.08 as the said chapter heading specifically speaks of plywood, veneered panels and similar laminated wood. (Para 13-15] (227-C-H; 228-A]' F 1.2. The word "similar" has been discussed by this court in the case of MIS Wood Craft Products Ltd.* with regard to "Block board". The logic applied in the case of 'Block board' can very well be applied in the instant G case. Heading_ 44.08 in the instant case covers "plywood", "veneered panels" together with all kinds of "similar laminated wood". Thus, it is treating "plywoQd" or "veneered panels" as "laminated wood". Therefore, it covers all kinds of laminated wood bearing any H COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA v. KITPLY 221 INDUSTRIES LTD. resemblance to "plywood" or "veneered panels". The A word used is "similar" and not "same". Thus, some resemblance to "plywood" or "veneered panels" is enough, provided the article can be treated as "laminated wood". The sweep of the heading is, therefore, quite wide. Therefore, for the product to be classified under B heading 44.08, it is enough if it is similar to laminated wood, which in the instant case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, it is clear that the product is- similar to plywood and veneered panels and, therefore, tariff heading 44.08 is squarely applicable. [para 15-18) c [227-H; 228-A-B; 229-A-C; F-G] . *CCE, Shillong v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. 1995 (77) ELT 23 - relied on Mis Sausashtra Chemicals v. Collector of Customs, D Bombay 1986 (23) ELT 283, Decorative Laminated (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Co/Ir. Of C. Ex., Bangalore 1996 (86) ELT 186 (SC.); and CCE, Indore v. Bombay Burmah Trading Corpn. Ltd. 2000(39) RLT 184 - referred to. 1.3. Further, in the instant case, the core laye
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.