1987 (2) TMI 176 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Competency of Superintendent of Central Excise to issue demand notice.
2. Classification of aluminium wires under Tariff Item 33-B of C.E.T.

Analysis:

Competency of Superintendent of Central Excise to issue demand notice:
The appeal challenged the demand for Central Excise duty on aluminium wire above 10 SWG valued at Rs. 3,37,355.60 cleared without payment of duty. The Superintendent issued the notice demanding duty, which was confirmed by the Assistant Collector and upheld by the Appellate Collector. The argument raised was whether the Superintendent had the authority to issue the demand notice. The Tribunal found that the Superintendent, being a Central Excise Officer and a proper officer in relation to the appellants, was competent to raise the demand under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules. The demand covered a period of six months prior to the notice, making it legally valid.

Classification of aluminium wires under Tariff Item 33-B of C.E.T.:
The key issue was whether the aluminium wires in question were of electrical grade, falling under Tariff Item 33-B of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants argued that subsequent tariff advice and exemption notifications classified the goods differently. They also contended that no tests were conducted on the goods to determine their grade. The Tribunal noted that the Assistant Collector did not provide reasons for reclassification or present any evidence of the wires being of electrical grade. As a result, the Tribunal remanded the case to the lower authority for a fresh examination based on facts and evidence, as the classification was unclear and required further scrutiny.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case for a detailed examination of the classification issue regarding the aluminium wires. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper classification and the need for evidence to support such determinations in Central Excise matters.