2002 (11) TMI 496 - AT - Central Excise

Iron Oxide Powder - Bluskyn Iron Oxide Powder - Graphite Powder - Cement Powder - Bluskyn Fire Cement Powder - Show cause notice - Scope

Summary

Issues: Classification of various products under specific tariff headings, claim of exemption under Notification No. 114/73, provisional assessments, enforceability of demands, misstatement in classification lists, and remand of the matter for redetermination.

Classification of Iron Oxide Powder:
The appellant claimed classification under heading 2505.00 of CETA, 1985 with exemption under Notification No. 114/73, which was approved. However, subsequent claims under headings 2505.90 and 2505.00 were not approved, leading to a proposed recovery of differential duty. The lower authority classified Iron Oxide Powder under S.H. No. 2821.10, denying exemption under Notification No. 114/73 but allowing benefit under Notification No. 23/55 until 28-2-94. The Commissioner upheld this classification as legal and proper due to the manufacturing process and mention in heading No. 28.21.

Classification of Graphite Powder:
The appellant's claim for exemption under Notification No. 114/73 was denied for Graphite Powder, classified under S.H. No. 2505.90 and later under 2505.00 post-1995 Budget. The Commissioner ruled out the objection, confirming the classification and exemption under subsequent notifications, leading to a nil rate of duty.

Classification of Colloidal Graphite Dry/Water Base:
Colloidal Graphite was classified under sub-heading No. 3801.00, falling under Chapter 38 and not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 114/73 due to not being pigments or dry colors. The Commissioner rejected the appellant's objection, confirming the classification under the specified heading.

Classification of Fire Cement Powder:
The impugned product, manufactured using Fire Clay, Ball Clay, and Soap Steel, was classified under S.H. No. 2505.90 till 1995 Budget and later under 2505.00. The Commissioner upheld this classification, denying exemption under Notification No. 114/73 but allowing exemption under subsequent notifications, resulting in a nil rate of duty post-1995.

Provisional Assessments and Enforceability of Demands:
The lower authority confirmed demands under Section 114 read with Rule 9(2), citing misstatements in classification lists and contraventions of C. Ex. Rules. The Commissioner found the demands sustainable under C. Ex. Law, rejecting the appellant's contentions and upholding the lower authority's order.

Remand of the Matter:
The appellate tribunal set aside the order due to misclassification of goods beyond the scope of notices. The matter was remanded to the original authority for redetermination of demands and penalties, emphasizing a clear finding on provisional assessments. The reclassification of goods was directed, leaving the quantification of demands open for further adjudication proceedings. The appeal was allowed by way of remand for reevaluation of duty liabilities.