Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
M/S. Tisco Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 23 January, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(131)ELT253(TRI-KOLKATA)
ORDER
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa
1. The dispute involved in the present appeal is as to whether the various forged products manufactured by the appellants, would be properly classifiable under heading 7326.90, as contended by the appellants, or the same would be classifiable under heading 8483.00, as found by the Revenue. The Commissioner vide his impugned Order by holding that the forged/rolled rings/blanks manufactured by the appellants are properly classifiable under heading 8483.00., which during the relevant period, attracted higher rate of duty and by denying the benefit of Notification No.223/88-CE dated 23.6.88, has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.8,32,33,408.58 and imposed penalty or Rs. 50 lakhs.
2. The appellants' contention is that the machining undertaken by them on the forged/rolled product is to make the forged article fit for further machining for the purpose of converting the same into parts of the machines at the customer's end. As such, it is submitted by the appellants that the processing undertaken by them is fully covered under the categories of processes spelt out in Notification No.223/88 dated 23.6.88. The above position that subsequent machining is undertaken at the customer's end is also admitted in para 2.4 of the show cause notice. Reference has been made to a number of decisions in support of the above submissions.
3. Dr. Samir Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the present confirmation of demand of duty against them is a result of dispute on the Classification List filed by them earlier claiming the classification of the goods under heading 7326.90. However, the Assistant Commissioner vide his speaking order dated 22.5.90, approved the Classification List filed by them with effect from 1.3.88, as under heading 8483.00. An appeal was filed against the above Approval Order of the Assistant Commissioner and was rejected by the Commissioner(Appeals), vide his Order-in-Appeal No.PAT/C.EX(EX)-259/91 dated 29.11.91. Thereafter, another appeal was filed by them before the C.E.G.A.T., New Delhi and the said Order of the authority below was set aside by the Tribunal vide its Final Order No.E/1516-1520/98B1 dated 6.10.98. The Tribunal after referring to the earlier decisions in the appellants' own case as also to the other decisions, had held the goods to be classifiable as forgings, as claimed by the appellants. As such, he submits that inasmuch as the initial dispute on the classification, as a consequence of which the present demand has been confirmed against the appellants, has been settled in their favour, the same is required to be set aside by the Tribunal.
4. Shri R.N.Das, learned Senior Advocate for the Revenue admits the above factual position, but submits that the earlier Order of the Tribunal had been appealed against by the Revenue before the Honourable Supreme Court, who have issued notices and have admitted the appeal. However, he fairly agrees that is no Order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court staying the operation of the Order of the Tribunal. As such, he agrees that there is no legal bar in deciding the present appeal.
5. After giving our careful consideration to the issue involved, we find the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the appellants to be correct. As such, by following the earlier decision of the Tribunal as relied upon by the appellants, we set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal with consequential reliefs to the appellants.
In asmuch as the appeal has been allowed on merits, no Orders are being passed on the issue of time-bar raised by the appellants.