[2009] 4 S.C.R. 1160

M/S. PRAGATI SILICONS (P) LTD. v.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PANCHKULA

Civil Appeal No. 1991 of 2006 ...

MARCH 25, 2009

(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, ..

JJ.) .,

EXCISE DUTY: ~

' c Classification of products and claim regarding exemption

- Nameplates, emblems and logo of plastic manufactured by assessee and claimed as accessories of motor vehicles - Matter remitted to CE STAT for consideration afresh taking into account the decisions of Supreme Court.

D Civil Appeal No. 1991 of 2006 was filed by the

~ - assessee contending that the nameplates, emblems and logo of plastic manufactured bv it were classifiable under Heading No. 87.08 and 87.14 as part of accessories of motor vehicles, and the CESTAT erred in holding that E Revenue was right in classifying the said items under Chapter 39.26. Civil Appeal No. 3248 of 2006 was filed by the Revenue challenging the decision of CESTAT allowing the exemption to the assessee.

F Disposing of the appeals and remitting the matters to the CESTAT the Court.

Held : In view of the decision* of this Court, it would be appropriate that the CESTAT considers the matters afresh taking into account both the decisions. (para 4)

G [1162-D]

* Pragati Silicons (P) Ltd. vs. CCE 2007 (5) SCR. 654=(2007) 211 ELT 534 (SC); Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. N.M. Nagpal (P) Ltd. 2008 (222) ELT 486 SC

- referred to.

H 1160

MIS. PRAGATI SILICONS (P) LTD. V. 1161

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PANCHKULA

Case Law Refeence

(2001) 130 ELT 359

2007 (5) SCR 654

cited

referred to

para 1

para 2

2008 (222) ELT 486 SC referred to para 3

CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1991 of2006

From the Judgement and Order No. 38/06-EX dated 05.01.2006 in Appeal No. E/ 521 /04~EX by the Customs, Excise C and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.

M.P. Devantha, B. Krishna Prasad, for the Appellants.

A.K. Panda, Anita Sahani, A. Annapoorni, B.V. Balaram Das, M.P. Devanath, with him for the Respondents.

The Judgement of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. These two appeals are directed. against the judgment

of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New E 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 F 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 G

 .i \ the assessee's case and held that Chapter 39.26 should be correct heading. This part of the decis[on 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. Nag pal Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE (2001) 130 ELT 359 that the exemption is available to the assessee.· H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2009] 4 S. C.R.

A 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 B 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, c 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 D to remit the matter to the CESTATto consider the matter afresh taking into account both the decisions referred to above.

5. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.

R.P.

Appeals disposed of.

. '