1983 (9) TMI 302 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of Brass Rods & wires under Central Excise Tariff (C.E.T.) - Contravention of Central Excise Rules - Suppression of facts - Time limit for demand of duty.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Tribunal concerned the classification of Brass Rods & wires under the Central Excise Tariff (C.E.T.) and the demand of duty by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, which was upheld by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The main issue was whether the demand of duty from the appellants for the specified period was correct.

The appellants held an L-4 Licence for the manufacture of products under Copper and Copper Alloys Item No. 26A of C.E.T. at their factory in Bombay Thane. The show cause notices issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise alleged various contraventions of Central Excise Rules by the appellants, including failure to file proper classification lists, determine duty correctly, declare proper descriptions, and pay duty at appropriate rates.

The Assistant Collector and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the demand of duty against the appellants. The appellants contended that their products were assessable under a nil rate of duty under Item 26A(1a) of C.E.T. and had made representations to the Central Board of Excise & Customs regarding the classification of their products. They argued that the demand was time-barred and there was no suppression of facts.

During the appeal hearing, it was argued that the goods in question, brass rods of 10 mm diameter, should be classified under Item 68 of C.E.T. rather than Item 26A(1a) as contended by the appellants. The dispute centered around whether the goods were in straight length or coil form, affecting their classification under the tariff.

The Tribunal found that the appellants had not provided sufficient particulars in their classification list to support their claim that the goods were classifiable under Item 26A(1a). It was determined that the goods should be classified under Item 68 of C.E.T. due to their thickness being 10 mm or less, making them more appropriate for classification under that item.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that there was suppression of facts on the part of the appellants, as they had not disclosed the manufacturing of brass rods up to 10 mm diameter under Item 68. Since no penalty was imposed and only duty was demanded, the demand of duty was held to be within the time limit. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and no interference with the lower authorities' orders was deemed necessary based on the facts and circumstances of the case.