2012 (8) TMI 628 - AT - Central Excise

Rejecting the claim of classification - manufacture of lubricating oil - Held that - As adjudicating authority had decided the issue only on the ground that the proper procedure was not followed at the time of drawal of samples of the goods for testing and has ignored the certificate produced from the National Test House, an Affidavit filed by Mr. Sharma - case is remanded to the lower adjudicating authority to decide the issue afresh

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods under Tariff Heading 2710.60 vs. Heading 3403.00, Procedure for drawal of samples not followed, Evidence submitted by the appellants not considered, Remand for denovo adjudication, Expeditious disposal of the case.

Analysis:

Classification of Goods:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing lubricating oil, claimed classification under Tariff Heading 2710.60, while the Department classified the goods under Heading 3403.00. Both lower authorities decided against the appellants due to improper sample drawal procedure. However, the composition of the product, a certificate from the National Test House, and an affidavit were not considered. The Tribunal remanded the case to the lower authority for fresh consideration, allowing both parties to present all documents and evidence.

Procedure for Drawal of Samples:
The dispute arose as the Department alleged that the proper procedure was not followed during the drawal of samples for testing. This issue was the primary basis for the rejection of the appellants' claim for re-classification. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following correct procedures and directed the lower authority to re-examine the case, considering all submissions and evidence presented.

Evidence Submitted by the Appellants:
The appellants provided a Certificate from the National Test House and an Affidavit from the General Manager, along with a classification list from their Chennai Unit supporting their claim of classification under Tariff Heading 2710.60. However, these pieces of evidence were not taken into account by the lower authorities in their decision-making process. The Tribunal highlighted the oversight and instructed the lower adjudicating authority to consider all evidence in the fresh adjudication.

Remand for Denovo Adjudication:
The Tribunal noted that the matter for the period from October 1994 to March 1995 was remanded for denovo adjudication by the Commissioner (Appeals) in 1998. The case was pending before the lower adjudicating authority for reconsideration. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case was based on the failure to consider crucial evidence and submissions by the appellants in the previous decisions.

Expeditious Disposal of the Case:
Acknowledging the prolonged pendency of the case since 1998, the Tribunal directed the lower adjudicating authority to expedite the fresh adjudication process. A timeline of three months was set for the lower authority to re-examine the case and make a decision, emphasizing the need for a prompt resolution of the matter.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the Tribunal's findings, and the directives given for the re-evaluation of the case, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings.