2012 (7) TMI 139 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods as Governing System under Chapter Heading 84.79 vide the Classification List No.1/88-89 SCN by classifying the goods under 84.83 - Commissioner set aside the OIO as Classification List was already approved and same cannot be re-opened Held that - As SCN was issued within the normal period of six months prescribed under Section 11A is not liable to be rejected as Department can raise a demand within six months in the case where Classification List has also approved u/ s 110(1) &(2)of Finance Act - the Section 11A of the Act as amended is a valid piece of legislation and Commissioner (Appeals) order is not sustainable as per law - the same is required to be re-examined - remand the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the classification of the goods.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal setting aside demand confirmation
- Classification dispute under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
- Validity of demand notice issuance within the statutory period
- Interpretation of Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000
- Precedent reliance on ITW Signode India Ltd. case
- Commissioner's authority to re-examine classification

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal setting aside the confirmation of demand by the lower Adjudicating Authority. The dispute revolved around the classification of goods under Chapter Sub-Heading Nos. 8406.00 and 8479.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Respondent classified their goods as Governing System under Chapter Heading 84.79, as per the approved Classification List No.1/88-89. The Department issued a Show Cause-cum-Demand Notice reclassifying the goods under 84.83, leading to the demand confirmation by the lower Adjudicating Authority, which was challenged by the Respondent before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Regarding the validity of the demand notice issuance within the statutory period, it was noted that the notice was issued within the normal period of six months as prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue contended that the demand based on Chapter Heading 84.83 was contrary to the approved Classification List, and they relied on Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000, for retrospective validation of the action taken.

The Respondent argued that the approved Classification List could not be reopened, citing a previous case where the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed an appeal classifying the product under Chapter Heading 84.79. The Tribunal observed that while the Commissioner had set aside the lower Adjudicating Authority's order based on the settled classification under 84.79, no finding was given on the classification of goods on its merits. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a detailed examination of the classification, emphasizing the need for a reasonable opportunity of hearing for the Respondent.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, highlighting the necessity for a thorough examination of the classification issue by the Commissioner (Appeals) to ensure a fair and just decision in accordance with the law and precedents cited during the proceedings.