LAWS(CE)-2003-5-175

HEMKUNT INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Decided On May 30, 2003
Hemkunt Industries Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these 3 appeals, filed by M/s. Hemkunt Industries, the issue involved is whether Decorative Plastic Photo Frames are classifiable under sub -heading 3926.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by the Appellants or under Heading 83.06 of the Tariff as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order.

(2.) SHRI R. Pal Singh, learned Consultant, submitted that Chapter 83 of the Central Excise Tariff applies to articles of Base Metal and parts of Base Metal; that as the impugned goods are not wholly made of Base Metal these cannot be classified under Heading 83.06; that the impugned goods are more appropriately classifiable under Heading 39.26 as these frames are made of plastic and velvet; that only front area has a steel sheet; that the steel frame even if riot affixed would not render the photo frame as an unusable article; that even without steel frame the photo frame is complete; that the purpose of affixing steel frame is not to accord essential character but to provide decoration or an embellishment; that the finding that steel frame accord essential character is not correct as it has only the decorative value; that steel frame by itself cannot be said to be an incomplete photo frame whereas plastic portion without steel frame can be said to be a complete photo frame; that thus plastic import essential character to the article and not to the steel.

(3.) COUNTERING the arguments Shri Vikas Kumar, learned SDR, submitted that as per Adjudication Order the outer boundary of the photo frame is of plastic and it is covered completely by velvet cloth; that the front side of visible surface area is steel sheet which has decorative chrome plating; that the weight and value of the steel sheet is more than the weight and value of plastic in all respect; that on account of photo frame in itself being a decorative item gets its essential character from decorative frame visible surface area and not merely due to plastic moulding. The learned S.D.R., further, submitted that photograph frames are specifically mentioned under Heading 83.06; that Explanatory Note of H.S.N. clearly mentions that photo frame remain in the group, if fitted with supports or with packing of paper board, wood or other material; that frame gets its essential character from steel sheet only. He relied upon the decision in the case of Technocraft Industries v. CCE, Mumbai, 1998 (98) E.L.T. 772 and P.P. Products v. CCE, Allahabad, 2000 (118) E.L.T. 63 (Tribunal). Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of CCE, Bangalore v. Drawcans Pvt. Ltd., 2000 (119) E.L.T. 655 (Tribunal) wherein HDPE Screws with Aluminium cladding have been classified under Heading 83.09 and not under sub -heading 7612.91. In reply the learned Consultant submitted that in their appeal before the Commissioner the Appellants have contested weight and value of plastic and steel; that according to them weight of plastics is 31.23 per cent and not 18.54 per cent and the steel portion is only 25% and it cannot be taken to be pre -dominant.