1980 (4) TMI 296 - Board - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff, Duty imposition, Confiscation of goods, Penalties

Classification of Goods under Central Excise Tariff:
The appellant, M/s. Kay Vybin Corporation, appealed against the orders of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, regarding the classification of goods made out of copper wire and metal clamps. The Board examined the nature of manufacture and specific use of the goods, ruling out their classification under Item 33-B(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff. The Board concluded that the goods cannot attract duty again under the said item due to their intended use and manufacturing process, ultimately allowing the appeal.

Duty Imposition and Confiscation of Goods:
The original order by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, detailed the arguments presented by M/s. Kay Vybin Corporation regarding the classification of spot welding cables under Item 33-B(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff. The company contended that since the cables were made from duty-paid copper wires, no additional duty should be levied. However, the Collector found that the cables were made from copper wire rope, not assessable under Item 33-B(ii), leading to the imposition of duty, confiscation of goods, and penalties. The Collector also noted that the company failed to provide evidence of the duty payment on the raw materials used in manufacturing the cables.

Penalties Imposed:
The order issued by the Collector imposed penalties on M/s. Kay Vybin Corporation for contravening Central Excise Rules. The company's argument that they sought clarification from a Central Excise Inspector, who verbally advised against duty payment, was dismissed due to the lack of evidence proving the communication. The Collector upheld the penalties, ordering confiscation of goods, a fine of &8377;4,500 for release, and penalties totaling &8377;64,000 for violating Central Excise Rules. Additionally, duty was ordered to be charged on the cleared cables at the appropriate rate.

Conclusion:
The judgment involved a detailed analysis of the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff, duty imposition, confiscation of goods, and penalties for non-compliance with Central Excise Rules. The decision highlighted the importance of providing evidence for duty payment on raw materials and the consequences of relying on verbal advice without proper documentation.