2001 (8) TMI 662 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under the tariff; Finality of classification orders; Provisional assessment and duty payment; Return of goods detained for non-payment.

Classification of goods under the tariff:
The case involved a dispute over the classification of copper tubes by a manufacturer. The manufacturer claimed the classification of the tubes as parts of machinery under heading 8485.90 of the tariff, while the authorities proposed a different classification under heading 8415.00. The Assistant Collector determined the product to be copper components classifiable under heading 7411.10 of the Tariff. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this classification, dismissing the manufacturer's appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled that the goods must be classified under the heading determined earlier, i.e., 7411.10, which was appealed by both sides.

Finality of classification orders:
The department's appeal contended that the classification ordered by the Collector (Appeals) related to a different classification list and should not apply to a subsequent classification. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that once a classification has been finalized through an order that has been appealed, it acquires finality. The Tribunal emphasized that there were no changes in circumstances or emergence of fresh facts justifying the alteration of the earlier classification.

Provisional assessment and duty payment:
The manufacturer argued that the classification under heading 7411.10 was finalized only by the Collector (Appeal)'s order and that assessments were provisional until then. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the classification was finalized by the Assistant Collector's order and not provisional. The Tribunal clarified that duty paid after the Assistant Collector approved the classification list was no longer provisional, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Samrat International v. CCE.

Return of goods detained for non-payment:
The manufacturer requested the return of goods detained for non-payment of duty, stating that the duty confirmed by the Assistant Collector had been paid after the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. The Tribunal noted that the fact of payment had not been brought to the notice of the Assistant Collector and directed the Assistant Commissioner to take appropriate action.

In conclusion, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the classification of the goods under heading 7411.10 and addressing the issue of duty payment and return of detained goods.