Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Cce, Jaipur-Ii vs M/S. Laxmi Iron & Steel Re-Rolling ... on 26 February, 2001
ORDER
Lajja Ram
1. These are five appeals against the common order-in-appeal No. 524-528 (KDT)CE/JPR-II/2000 dated 24.5.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur. The matter relates to the classification of the iron and steel products. The Revenue had sought classification of the goods in question as hoops falling under sub-heading No.7211.30 and flat rolled products falling under sub-heading No. 7211.19 of the Cental Excise Tariff. The respondents had claimed classification under sub-heading No. 7214.90 of the Central Excise Tariff as bars and rods.
2. The Revenue has filed one appeal against the impugned order in which the notices were M/s. Laxmi Iron and Steel Re-rolling Mills and four of its parties. The main appeal was filed in time.
3. When it was pointed-out that there were five noticees, the Revenue filed supplementary appeals. As per practice of the Tribunal, the delay in filing the supplementary appeals is condoned.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in his impugned order had held as under:-
"6. I have carefully considered the case papers and submissions made by the appellants. I find that there is lot of merit in the appellants submissions. The Tribunal in thier decision dated 20.12.1992 in Calcutta Steel Industries's case has gone into considerable detail in respect of various products of different width and thickness including the point that the appellants in that case had manufactured their products in a section/bars mill, and the products were of uneven thickness and uneven width. I also find that among other case law, the Tribunal had also referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court order in CCE Vs. Calcutta Steel Industries - 1989 (39) ELT 175 in coming to their findings. Applying the ratio of these decisions, I hold that the disputed products were classifiable as bars and rods of sub-heading No.7214.90. I, therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals."
6. Shri M.P. Singh, JDR submits that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had recorded no reasons while detailed findings had been recorded by the Dy. Commissioner, who had adjudicated the order. The product details and specifications had not been discussed. He relies upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Garg Strips and Rolling Mills Vs. CCE, Allahabad - 1995 (78) ELT 93 (Tribunal). He further submits that this Tribunal's decision has been cofirmed by the Apex Court as reported at page A- 212 of 1995 (79) ELT.
7. Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate submits that the matter is covered by the Tribunal's decision in the case of Calcutta Steel Industries Vs. CCE - 1999 (54) ELT 90 (Tribunal), which has also been up-held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He also refers to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Bhusan Steel Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh - 1998 (97) ELT 330 (Tribunal) and Mahesh Iron & Steel Re-rolling Mills Vs. CCE, Jaipur - 1998 (97) ELT 472 (Tribunal).
8. We find that this matter has to be decided on the basis of the facts, specifications and dimensions of the goods in dispute. While the ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has noted the submissions made by the assessee but he had not discussed the details about the products in his order, which has been extracted above. From the order-in-original, we find that detailed description of the goods had been given and the matter had been decided on the basis of the applicable case law. This has to be examined in detail by the appellate authority, which had not been done in the present case. Although this matter has once been remanded earlier for violation of the principles of natural justice, as we find that again the order is non-speaking and does not contain all the details necessary for arriving at a considered view by the Tribunal, reluctantly, we have to once again remand this matter to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise, who will provide opportunity to both sides and then pass a speaking appealable order as per law.
9. The Department is at liberty to raise the grounds, which they have given before us. Thus, all the five appeals are allowed by way of remand. Ordered accordingly.
Order dictated & pronounced in the Open Court on 26.2.2001.