1992 (6) TMI 32 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods under Tariff Item 68 or 16-A, reliance on Chemical Examiner's report, opportunity for petitioner to contest grounds of Tribunal's decision, maintainability of writ petition, principles of natural justice, alternative remedy under Section 35C of the Act.

Classification of Goods:
The petitioner, a manufacturer of reclaimed rubber, challenged the classification of his product under Tariff Item 68 by the Customs department. The Appellate Collector classified it under Tariff Item 16-A, but the Tribunal reversed this decision based on a Chemical Examiner's report and a previous case. The petitioner sought to quash the Tribunal's order, emphasizing the differences in the production process between his company and the previous case.

Reliance on Chemical Examiner's Report:
The petitioner argued that the Tribunal erred in relying on a note appended to the Chemical Examiner's report, which was not present in the original report. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to contest this new information, highlighting a lack of procedural fairness in the decision-making process.

Maintainability of Writ Petition:
The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as an appeal to the Supreme Court could be pursued under Section 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act. However, the petitioner argued that the case did not involve questioning the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment, but rather the classification of goods, making it eligible for a writ petition.

Principles of Natural Justice:
The High Court found that the petitioner was not given a proper opportunity to contest the grounds on which the Tribunal based its decision. The Court held that the Tribunal's failure to provide this opportunity violated the principles of natural justice, warranting the quashing of the Tribunal's order and a remand for a fresh hearing.

Alternative Remedy under Section 35C:
The respondents suggested that the petitioner should have sought rectification under Section 35C of the Act instead of filing a writ petition. However, the Court rejected this argument, citing the long pendency of the case and the potential injustice of forcing the petitioner to pursue a different remedy after such a delay.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Tribunal's order, and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the importance of providing the petitioner with a fair opportunity to contest the grounds of the Tribunal's decision.