The Ahmedabad bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that cutting and filing resin in marble slabs carried out before 1-3-2006 would not amount to manufacture and allowed the benefit under exemption notification.
Stonemann Marble Industries, the impugned order demand of Rs.1,05,59,320/- was confirmed on the ground that the polished granite slabs are classifiable under tariff item no. 6802 23 90 as per the revenue and not under tariff item no. 2156 1200 as claimed by the appellant.
The demand of Rs. 9,07,393/- was confirmed on artificial marble slabs cleared after 26.02.2010. The amount of Rs. 49,811 was demanded on the clearance of 1612 square metres of marble slabs without payment of duty and a duty demand of Rs. 2,26,598/- was confirmed on the clearance of 7,333.275 Square metres of marble slabs which was cleared without payment of duty.
Shri Anand Nainawati, counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant at the outset submitted that as regards the demand of duty on the granite slabs due to dispute in the classification whether the same is classifiable under tariff item no. 6802 23 90 or tariff item no. 2156 1200 the issue has been settled in favour of the appellant.
The issue involved in this case is “whether the imported natural marble blocks, imported agglomerated blocks and imported marble slabs after being subjected to processes such as cutting or sawing into slabs, fibre backing, resin filling, polishing and further edging etc. are classifiable under CSH No. 2515 12 20, 6810 19 90 and 6802 21 90 of Customs Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as contended by assessee or would merit same classification under CSH No. 6802 19 00, 6810 99 90 and 6802 91 00 of Customs Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as contended by the Revenue.
The adjudicating authority, in the entire Order-in-Original, has dedicated the findings as to whether the process of fibering of the marble slabs, filling the marble slabs with resin, and filling them with colour pigments to fill the cracks and pin holes present on the surface of the slabs, process of edge-cutting in which un-even sides of the slabs are being cut to give a proper size to the slab and process of polishing wherein the front side of the slab is polished, will amount to manufacture as per the Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Chapter Note to Chapter 25 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
In the impugned orders, Commissioner held that after the introduction of the 8-digit classification code from 1st March 2005 in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Aman Marble Industries v. CCE, 2003 would not apply and the products are not classifiable under Chapter 25 of the Tariff.
Rough Marble Slabs/Polished Marbles are classifiable under sub-heading no. 6802 91 00, Polished Marble Tiles are classifiable under sub-heading no. 6802 21 10 and Granite Blocks and Granite files are classifiable under sub-heading no. 6802 23 10 and 6802 93 00 of the Tariff respectively.
It was observed that the activities carried out by the appellants before 1-3-2006, would not amount to manufacture. From 1-3-2006, the goods in question are classifiable under Chapter 25 and the benefit of Notification No. 4/2006C.E., dated 3-2-2006 are admissible. Hence, the demand for duty and penalty is not sustainable. The impugned orders are set aside. The appeals are allowed with consequential relief.
A two-member bench comprising Ramesh Nair, member (judicial) and C L Mahar, Member (Technical) observed that the appellant have made the submission that they had paid the duty on 30th June 2010 for the period April 2010 to June 2010 as a differential duty. However, the adjudicating authority may verify the said claim of the appellant and arrive at a correct computation of demand.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
