1984 (4) TMI 282 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of F.R.P. roofing sheets under Central Excise Tariff, validity of show cause notice, necessity of review proceedings, legality of Assistant Collector's order, irregularities in lower authorities' proceedings.

Classification of F.R.P. Roofing Sheets:
The appellants, manufacturers of F.R.P. roofing sheets, claimed exemption under Central Excise Notification No. 68/71. The Assistant Collector initially approved the exemption but later, a show cause notice was issued alleging contravention of Central Excise Rules. The Asstt. Collector held the roofing sheets as rigid plastic sheets liable to duty under Item 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff. The Appellate Collector upheld this decision, stating that the earlier order had not acquired finality. However, the appellants argued that the roofing sheets were final products, not liable to duty under Item 15A(2).

Validity of Show Cause Notice and Review Proceedings:
The show cause notice issued by the Supdt. was challenged by the appellants as illegal due to the approval of the classification list by the Assistant Collector. The proceedings were deemed irregular as the Assistant Collector's decision was not reviewed by the competent authority. The Assistant Collector's order was considered final, and the subsequent show cause notice lacked a valid basis, rendering it incompetent.

Legality of Assistant Collector's Order:
The Assistant Collector's order approving the classification list was deemed final and not subject to review, as it was duly followed by the appellants. The subsequent show cause notice and adjudication order were considered irregular and illegal, as they contradicted the approved classification list without proper review proceedings.

Irregularities in Lower Authorities' Proceedings:
The Tribunal found the proceedings before the lower authorities to be riddled with irregularities and illegalities. The Assistant Collector's order confirming duty demands for periods beyond the show cause notice and the Appellate Collector's decision lacking proper review of the Assistant Collector's order were highlighted as significant defects in the quasi-judicial functions of the lower authorities.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential benefits to the appellants. The decision emphasized the irregularities in the proceedings and the lack of necessity to address other contentions due to the primary issue's resolution. The judgment highlighted the importance of following due process and conducting review proceedings before altering decisions based on approved orders.