1984 (3) TMI 411 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against imposition of duty on manufacturing diffusers and condensers for refrigerating machinery. Interpretation of Tariff Item No. 29A(3) for excisability. Applicability of recent judgments on duty imposition. Jurisdictional conflict between High Courts. Retrospective validity of Rule 9 amendment. Infringement of Rule 9 due to removal without intimation. Consideration of personal penalty in light of conflicting decisions.

Analysis:
The case involved a revision petition treated as an appeal against the imposition of duty on manufacturing diffusers and condensers for refrigerating machinery. The appellants argued that the parts did not attract duty under Tariff Item No. 29A(3) and relied on a judgment of the Allahabad High Court. The authorities discovered the products during an inspection and issued a show cause notice demanding duty and penalty. The Assistant Collector and Appellate Collector upheld the demand and penalty, leading to the appeal.

The respondent argued that the manufactured parts were indeed for air-conditioning and refrigerating machinery, citing recent judgments supporting their view. The Tribunal considered all arguments and recent judgments, including one from the Gujarat High Court, which held that such parts attract duty under Item 29A(3). The Tribunal noted the amendment of Rule 9 and Rule 49 post the Allahabad High Court judgment, leading them to support the reasoning in the Gujarat High Court judgment.

The Tribunal rejected the appellants' argument that the Gujarat High Court judgment should not apply to their factory's jurisdiction. They also dismissed the reliance on other High Court rulings as the issue primarily concerned the rate of duty and goods' assessment. The Tribunal further analyzed Tariff Entry 29A, emphasizing that the manufacturing of parts for refrigerating machinery attracts duty, especially with the amended Rule 9 requiring intimation before removal.

Regarding the personal penalty, the Tribunal acknowledged the conflicting decisions and circumstances, leading them to set aside the penalty while confirming the duty demand. The Tribunal considered the infringement of Rule 9 due to removal without intimation, noting the restricted limitation period and ultimately allowing the appeal in part.