MEGHDEV ENTERPRISES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these petitions the principal question raised as regards entitlement to claim refund of the amount of excise duty paid on account of wrong classification of the article manufactured by the petitioners, i.e., decorative laminated sheets, is common. Moreover, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the parties, the facts in all the cases are almost similar. Therefore, at the request and with the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, all these petitions are ordered to be heard together.

(2.) Decorative laminated sheets were subject to excise duty under tariff item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944 upto February 28, 1986. Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 came into force on February 28, 1986. Therefore, from March 1, 1986 classification of the article was required to be made as per the Schedules provided in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. According to the petitioners their product was paper based decorative laminated sheets and not plastic based. Therefore, they classified their product under Chapter 48 sub-heading 4818.90 upto February 28, 1988. Thereafter, from March 1, 1988 the product was classified under sub-heading 4823.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioners filed classification list before the Assistant Collector accordingly. The Assistant Collector did not approve the same and held that the product manufactured by the petitioners was falling under Chapter 39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which dealt with plastics and articles thereof. Therefore, the petitioners contend that they started paying the duty of excise under protest. In some cases the dispute as regards classification appears to have been carried upto Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) and thereafter upto the Supreme Court before which the appeals filed by the Department against the decision of CEGAT classifying the article under sub-heading 4818.90 upto February 28, 1988 and under sub-heading 4823.90 from 1-3-1988 has been challenged. It is also an undisputed position that the appeals have been admitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and they are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the dispute with regard to classification of the article in question has still not become final.

(3.) Special C. A. No. 959 of 1990 : The petitioners had filed classification list on August 22, 1986 which was disapproved by the Assistant Collector by his order dated May 5, 1987. Appeal was preferred by the petitioners before the Collector. The Collector (Appeals), as per his order dated September 9, 1988 held that the product was classifiable under subheading No. 4811.39. Against this order both the Department and the petitioners filed appeal before CEGAT being appeal No. E/3521/88-C and E-3257/87-C respectively. CEGAT decided the appeals along with other appeals filed by different manufacturers and the Department, as per judgment and order dated October 4, 1989. CEGAT held that the product was classifiable under sub-heading 4818.90 upto February 28, 1988 and under sub-heading 4823.90 from 1-3-1988. General direction given by CEGAT as regards consequential relief will be reproduced hereinbelow.