1983 (9) TMI 297 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff and eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 55/75, additional ground of appeal regarding the manufacturing process and time-barred demand beyond six months.

Classification of Goods and Exemption Eligibility: The appeal before the Tribunal involved the classification of goods described as "animal feed products" under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and their eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 55/75. The appellants claimed that the goods were "animal feeds" and thus entitled to the exemption. The Tribunal considered the dispute and decided to remand the case for a fresh decision on the classification of the goods by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. The additional ground raised by the appellants regarding the absence of a manufacturing process for the products was also taken into account.

Additional Ground of Appeal and Manufacturing Process: The appellants sought to add an additional ground of appeal stating that no excise duty should be levied on their products due to the absence of a manufacturing process. This ground was contested by the Department, arguing that it was not raised before the lower authorities or in the original appeal to the Tribunal. Despite this, the Tribunal allowed the new ground to be raised, considering the importance of determining the correct classification of the goods. The case was remanded for further investigation into this new aspect, with the appellants expressing readiness to pursue the matter before the Assistant Collector.

Time-Barred Demand: The appellants highlighted that the Order-in-Appeal had a clear finding in their favor, stating that any demand beyond a period of six months was time-barred. They emphasized that even if the decision on excisability or classification was adverse, the demand could not extend beyond six months. The Department did not contest this point. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous findings on the classification of goods and remanded the case for a fresh decision by the Assistant Collector, ensuring that any demand beyond six months would be time-barred, regardless of the classification outcome.