REPORTABLE

                                                                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1991 OF 2006

M/s. Pragati Silicons (P) Ltd.           ….Appellant  

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula ….Respondent

(With Civil Appeal No.3248 of 2006)

J U D G M E N T

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment of the Customs

Excise  and  Service  Tax  Appellate  Tribunal,  New  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

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 the assessee’s case and held that Chapter 39.26 should be correct

heading.   This  part  of  the  decision  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. Nagpal Pvt.

Ltd. v.  CCE (2001) 130 ELT 359 that  the  exemption is  available  to  the

assessee.  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 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,  relied  on  a

decision of this Court  in  Commissioner of Central  Excise, Delhi v.  N.M.

2

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 to remit the

matter to the CESTAT to consider the afresh taking into account both the

decisions referred to above.    

5. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.  

………………......................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)      

         ……..……….........................J.

        (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) New Delhi, March 25, 2009

3