2013 (1) TMI 354 - AT - Central Excise

Classification - C.S. Casting of Frame Middle Section (part of coal charging car) - Under heading No. 8474.00 Classification approved by the Asstt. Commissioner under sub-heading No. 8431 - The Zonal Office issued a SCN to the assessee who contested the show cause notice reiterating that the goods in question were classifiable under sub-heading No. 8484 - Held that - It is evident that immediately after approval of classification under sub-heading No. 8431, the department served the respondent/assessee with the show cause notice raising demand based on the said classification which was contested by the respondent on the plea that the classification approved under sub-heading 8431 by the Deptt. was incorrect. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent had accepted the classification approval done by the Asstt. Commissioner and that approval has attained finality. In favour of assessee

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff - Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) - Challenge to classification approval by Asstt. Commissioner

The judgment involves the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff, specifically focusing on the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the challenge to the classification approval by the Assistant Commissioner. The key issue revolves around the correct classification of C.S. Casting of Frame Middle Section, part of a coal charging car, under the appropriate sub-heading.

Analysis:

The case was brought before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, following an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who classified the goods under Heading No. 8474.00, setting aside the duty demand confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Revenue challenged this classification solely based on the earlier approval of classification under sub-heading 8431 by the Assistant Commissioner, which was not contested by the assessee, making it final according to them.

The Advocate for the respondent argued that the goods were rightly classified under sub-heading 8474. The Tribunal noted the history of the case, including a show cause notice issued based on the initial classification under sub-heading 8431, which was contested by the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for re-adjudication, leading to the current appeal.

The Commissioner (Appeals) analyzed the use of the goods in question, highlighting their role in the pallet assembly for handling iron ore in a sintering plant. The Commissioner considered various notes and rules of interpretation to determine the appropriate classification under the Central Excise Tariff. Documents submitted by the appellant also supported the classification under Heading 84.74.

The Departmental Representative did not challenge the classification on merits but argued that the earlier classification approval should be final. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, emphasizing that the acceptance of the initial classification was not binding for future classifications, especially when contested promptly. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner's order and dismissed the appeal, affirming the classification under Heading 84.74 for the goods in question.