2007 (4) TMI 163 - AT - Central Excise

Order passed beyond the scope of SCN is not applicable Hence classifying Box strappings under Heading 7211.31 and demand are not sustainable Period of limitation will be computed as per the date of corrigendum in SCN

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods under Chapter Heading, Manufacturing process of Box Strappings, Scope of Show Cause Notice, Limitation period for demand.

Analysis:
1. Manufacturing Process of Box Strappings:
The case involved the manufacturing process of Box Strappings falling under Chapter Sub Heading 7212.30. The Original Authority determined that manufacturing occurred in the process of slitting, deburring, heat treatment, painting, and waxing of cold rolled steel strips to obtain box strappings. The Assistant Commissioner demanded a significant amount from the Respondents, which led to an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Original Authority's order, prompting the Revenue to file an appeal. The CESTAT, New Delhi, in a previous order, classified Box Strappings under Chapter 7211.31, emphasizing the manufacturing process involved. The CESTAT held that the processes undertaken by the assessee for making Box Strappings amounted to manufacturing, especially considering the cumulative effect of multiple processes resulting in a distinct product.

2. Scope of Show Cause Notice:
Initially, eight Show Cause Notices were issued proposing to classify the goods under Chapter Heading No. 7308.90. However, a corrigendum reclassified the goods under Chapter Sub Heading 7326.90 for a specific period. The subsequent Order-in-Original classified the goods under 7212.30, which was beyond the scope of the original Show Cause Notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly relied on precedents to determine that the demand was beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice due to the change in classification. The period of limitation for the demand was considered from the date of the corrigendum, leading to the conclusion that the demand was time-barred.

3. Limitation Period for Demand:
The Commissioner (Appeals) appropriately applied the principle that the second Show Cause Notice could not invoke a longer period of limitation. Citing relevant cases, the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the Respondents, stating that the demand was time-barred. The decision was supported by precedents like Jyothi Laboratories v. CCE and Santha Industrial v. CCE, ensuring that the proceedings were dropped. The Commissioner (Appeals) also referred to cases like ECE Industries Ltd. v. CCE and Hyderabad Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE to justify the limitation period for the demand. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.