2003 (7) TMI 610 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved: Validity of the impugned order-in-appeal reversing the order-in-original, classification of goods under different tariff headings, legality of duty demand and penalty imposition.

Classification of Goods Issue: The appeal involved a dispute regarding the classification of goods manufactured by the respondents under Heading 8479 or 8445 of the Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA). The adjudicating authority confirmed duty demand and imposed penalty based on the goods being classified under Heading 8479. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order-in-original, stating that the duty demand could not be confirmed under a different heading than alleged in the show cause notice. The Commissioner's decision was supported by legal precedents such as CCE, Bombay v. Neoluxe India and Nestle India Ltd. v CCE, New Delhi, emphasizing that the demand cannot be confirmed under a tariff heading different from the one proposed in the show cause notice. The Tribunal and the Apex Court also highlighted the importance of sticking to the allegations in the show cause notice, stating that considering a different classification not mentioned in the notice would be improper.

Legal Validity Issue: The Revenue contended that the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was illegal as the respondents had cleared dutiable goods without payment of duty after exceeding the exemption limit. On the other hand, the Counsel argued that the adjudicating authority had exceeded the scope of the show cause notice, leading to the setting aside of the order-in-original. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the adjudicating authority had indeed gone beyond the allegations raised in the show cause notice, making the order-in-original illegal. The Commissioner's decision was deemed valid based on legal principles established in previous cases and was upheld, resulting in the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal for lacking merit.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision regarding the classification of goods and the legality of the duty demand and penalty imposition, based on the principle that the demand cannot be confirmed under a different tariff heading than the one proposed in the show cause notice. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed for being without merit.