1988 (2) TMI 269 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of products under Tariff Item sub-heading No. 7407.00, Opportunity of being heard before adverse order, Principles of natural justice.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, MADRAS, the appeals were filed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, which classified the products manufactured by the appellants under Tariff Item sub-heading No. 7407.00. The appellants contended that their product, brass powder, should be classified under Tariff sub-heading 3801.90. The Assistant Collector revised the classification list without giving the appellants an opportunity to be heard, which was confirmed by the appellate authority. The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that principles of natural justice demand that the appellants should be heard before an adverse order is passed. The learned D.R. representing the respondent agreed that the aggrieved party should be given an opportunity to be heard before any adverse order concerning classification is made.

The Tribunal agreed with the submissions made by the appellants' Counsel and the learned D.R. that changing the classification list, especially to the detriment of the manufacturer, should be done after affording an opportunity of being heard in line with the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal referenced previous rulings, including one by the Bombay High Court, emphasizing that Excise authorities must have material and evidence before them to make a classification decision. Additionally, the Tribunal cited a case involving Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corpon Ltd., highlighting the importance of approval of classification and price lists in the assessment process of manufactured goods. The Tribunal also mentioned a decision by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, stating that the principles of natural justice require that the affected party should have the opportunity to represent their case before any action is taken by a statutory authority.

Based on the above legal principles and decisions, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was not sustainable in law. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the original authority for reconsideration, emphasizing the need to afford the appellants an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice.