2017 (2) TMI 761 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 275/88-C.E., dated 4-11-1988 - SG Iron castings - Spacer rings - no proof-machining is carried out on these two items - Held that - the said products are not proof-machining and therefore entitled to benefit of N/N. 275/88-C.E - it was not open to the Dy. Commissioner to rely on the record of personal hearing held on 18-3-1994 as the same has been challenged before higher authorities in the earlier round of litigation - benefit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for benefit of Notification No. 275/88-C.E. rejected by original adjudicating authority; Remand to verify proof-machining on SG Iron castings and Spacer rings; Dy. Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed demand without considering physical verification results.

Analysis:

The case involved the appellant, engaged in manufacturing castings and cast articles of iron and steel under Chapter Heading 73.25, seeking benefit under Notification No. 275/88-C.E. The original adjudicating authority rejected the claim, leading to litigation up to the Tribunal. In the first round, the Tribunal upheld the rejection except for SG Iron castings and Spacer rings, remanding the issue of proof-machining to the Assistant Commissioner for verification.

In the subsequent round of litigation, the Dy. Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand, disregarding the physical verification results indicating no proof-machining on SG Iron castings and Spacer rings. The appellant argued that the Dy. Commissioner relied on previous personal hearing records, which were challenged in the earlier round of litigation. The appellant contended that the Dy. Commissioner should have conducted fresh verification as directed by the Tribunal.

During the second round of litigation, the appellant emphasized the Tribunal's specific remand to verify proof-machining on SG Iron castings and Spacer rings. The lower authorities conducted physical verification but failed to consider the results. The appellant highlighted that the physical verification confirmed no proof-machining on the mentioned products. The Tribunal found the Dy. Commissioner erred in relying on previous personal hearing records, which were under challenge in earlier litigation rounds.

Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that SG Iron castings and Spacer rings were not subject to proof-machining and thus entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 275/88-C.E. based on the earlier Tribunal order. The appeal was allowed concerning these two products, emphasizing the importance of following specific remand directions and considering fresh evidence in litigation proceedings.