2003 (2) TMI 258 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of mistake in the impugned final order.
2. Classification of residue material for duty purposes.

Issue 1: Rectification of Mistake
The appellants filed a ROM application seeking rectification of a mistake in the final order where their appeal was dismissed without considering the issue of limitation raised by them. The counsel reiterated that the plea of limitation had not been taken into account during the hearing. The Tribunal found that the plea of limitation was indeed raised by the appellants but was not considered during the hearing. Citing a previous case, it was established that non-consideration of a plea made in the appeal memo constitutes a mistake apparent on the record. Consequently, the ROM application was accepted, and the impugned final order was recalled.

Issue 2: Classification of Residue Material
The dispute revolved around the classification of the residue material left during the manufacturing process of Hydrazine. The appellants claimed classification under Tariff Heading 2501 as Denatured Salt, while the Revenue argued for classification under Tariff Heading 3842 as a residue product of Chemical and Allied Industries. Although the initial classification was not accepted by the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the appellants. However, the Tribunal later reversed this decision. It was noted that there was a genuine dispute regarding the classification of the residue material, and the appellants had disclosed their manufacturing process to the Department. The duty demand was found to be time-barred as the show cause notice was issued well after the prescribed period. Consequently, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside on the grounds of limitation, and the appeal of the appellants was allowed with any consequential relief permissible under the law.