2004 (2) TMI 484 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of the product "Anpol" under sub-heading No. 3405.90 or Heading No. 14.01 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.

Analysis:
1. Manufacture Issue:
The appellant argued that their process of grinding and sieving corncobs to produce "Anpol" did not amount to manufacture. They cited circulars and legal precedents to support their claim. However, the Departmental Representative contended that the processes undertaken resulted in creating two new products, poultry food, and polishing material, thus constituting manufacture. The Tribunal agreed with the Department's argument, stating that the appellant could not introduce a new case at the second appeal stage.

2. Interpretation of Tariff Issue:
The appellant challenged the Commissioner's interpretation of the Tariff, citing rules and explanatory notes to argue that "Anpol" should be classified under Chapter 4 or Heading 23.01 instead of Heading 34.05. They also claimed eligibility for certain exemptions based on the classification. The Departmental Representative countered, asserting that "Anpol" fell under Heading 34.05 as a polishing medium. The Tribunal analyzed the Tariff headings and concluded that "Anpol" was a residue from the food industry, classifiable under Heading 23.01, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals.

3. Penalty and Limitation Issue:
The appellant argued against the imposition of penalties under the Central Excise Act, citing their belief in the classification under Chapter 14 or Chapter 23, supported by the DGFT's classification. The Departmental Representative invoked an extended period of limitation due to incomplete information provided by the appellant. The Tribunal considered both arguments and ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the classification under Heading 23.01 and rejecting the penalties.

In conclusion, the judgment resolved the classification issue of "Anpol" by determining it as a residue from the food industry under Heading 23.01 of the Central Excise Tariff, overturning the previous orders and allowing the appeals. The detailed analysis covered aspects of manufacture, interpretation of the Tariff, exemption eligibility, penalties, and limitation periods, providing a comprehensive legal assessment of the case.