2004 (10) TMI 109 - AAR - Central Excise

Whether the products in question are classifiable under Chapter Heading 7323.90 or 7326.19 or any other Chapter Head or more than one Chapter Head ? Whether the applicant appears to have already commenced the activity of manufacture of goods which are the subject-matter of the advance ruling application?

Summary

Issues: Classification of products under specific Chapter Heading; Compliance with application requirements; Commencement of activity of manufacturing goods.

The judgment deals with an application under Section 23C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, seeking an advance ruling on the classification of products under specific Chapter Headings. The applicant, a resident Indian partnership firm engaged in manufacturing iron and steel wire products, sought clarification on the classification of its products. The excise department had provisionally classified the products under Chapter heading 7326.19, pending a final ruling by the Authority. The Authority issued a notice to the applicant, raising concerns about the lack of details regarding the non-resident co-venturer in the proposed joint venture and the potential commencement of manufacturing activities before the ruling. The Authority examined the application and relevant records, considering whether the question raised was already pending before any Central Excise Officer, Appellate Tribunal, or Court.

Regarding the first ground raised in the notice, the applicant provided the necessary details as per the requirement. However, the Authority focused on the second ground, which pertained to the question of whether the application should be rejected if the classification issue was already under consideration by the Central Excise Authority. The Assistant Commissioner's letter indicated that the classification matter was indeed pending before the Division-IV, Surat-I. As per the provisions of Section 23D, the Authority could not entertain the application if the question was already under consideration by the Central Excise Authority. Therefore, based on this ground alone, the application was deemed liable for rejection.

Additionally, the Authority considered the issue of the commencement of manufacturing activities in relation to the definition of "advance ruling." The definition specified that an advance ruling pertains to a question of law or fact regarding the liability to pay duty in relation to an activity proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. The applicant's response confirmed that they had already commenced manufacturing the goods in question, indicating that the activity was not merely proposed but already in progress. Consequently, the Authority concluded that no question seeking an advance ruling could be entertained for goods that were already being manufactured. Therefore, based on the commencement of manufacturing activities, the application was rejected for this reason as well.