2006 (2) TMI 434 - AT - Central Excise

Motor vehicle parts, I.C. engine parts and crank shaft - Demand - Classification - Jurisdiction

Summary

Issues: Classification of forged products under Central Excise Tariff Act.

Analysis:
1. The case was remitted to the Tribunal by the Supreme Court for deciding on merits due to the change in the law. The appellants requested an adjournment which was not granted as they failed to appear for the hearing. The Tribunal proceeded to hear the case based on the evidence on record.

2. Show cause notices were issued to the appellants regarding the classification of forgings manufactured by them under Chapter headings 8708.00 and 8483.00. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty demanded, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the alignment of Central Excise Tariff with the Harmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN).

3. The appellants argued that their forgings did not acquire the essential characteristics of finished articles as they required further machining and working by customers. They contested the show cause notices, citing procedural irregularities and reliance on incorrect rules. The appellants referred to the Madhumilan Syntex case to challenge the demands made without modifying the approved classification lists.

4. The Revenue supported the lower authorities' findings and the issuance of show cause notices for changing the classification of products in question. They argued against the appellants' reliance on previous case law, stating that the show cause notice was valid for the period after its issue.

5. The Tribunal examined the classification list filed by the appellants and the manufacturing process of the forgings. It was observed that the forged parts underwent various processes making them identifiable as parts of motor vehicles, internal combustion engines, and crankshafts under Chapters 87 and 84. The lower authorities' classification was upheld based on Interpretative Rules to the Central Excise Tariff Act.

6. The Tribunal found that the classification was modified after due opportunity for the appellants to present their defense. The Assistant Collector, not the Superintendent, made the decision to modify the classification. The demands were confirmed within the statutory period, and the appeal was dismissed as there was no merit in the contentions raised by the appellants.

7. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' classification of the forged products under Chapter 87 or 84, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants.