1988 (4) TMI 236 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff.
2. Reliability of test reports.
3. Time-bar of demands for differential duty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Goods under the Central Excise Tariff:
The primary issue revolved around the correct classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff. The goods in question were residue oil obtained from processing condensate. The appellants argued that the goods should fall under Tariff Item 10 as furnace oil, while the Department classified them under various Tariff Items (6, 7, 8, and 9).

The Tribunal reviewed the test results provided by the Chief Chemist, Central Revenues Control Laboratory, and classified the goods as follows:
- Show Cause Notice dated 14-2-1974 (Period: 15-9-1972 to 5-10-1972): The goods were classified under Tariff Item 8 - Refined Diesel Oil.
- Show Cause Notice dated 14-2-1974 (Period: 12-12-1972 to 17-1-1973): The goods were classified under Tariff Item 9 - Diesel Oil, not otherwise specified.
- Show Cause Notice dated 16-1-1974 (Period: 18-1-1973 to 11-2-1973): The goods were classified under Tariff Item 9 - Diesel Oil, not otherwise specified.
- Show Cause Notice dated 6-3-1974 (Period: 17-3-1973 to 16-4-1973): The goods were classified under Tariff Item 8 - Refined Diesel Oil and vaporizing oil.
- Show Cause Notice dated 24-5-1974 (Period: 25-9-1973 to 9-10-1973): The goods were classified under Tariff Item 8 - Refined Diesel Oil and vaporizing oil.

The Tribunal upheld the classification done by the Assistant Collector, confirming that the demands for differential duty were correctly classified under the respective Tariff Items.

2. Reliability of Test Reports:
The appellants contested the reliability of the test reports, arguing that there were discrepancies between the original and re-test results. They cited a decision by the Bombay High Court, which held that when a sample showed two results, it was not permissible for the Department to select the one that suited them.

The Tribunal rejected this plea, stating that since the appellants had requested the re-tests, they were bound by the results. The classification of goods was based on the re-test results conducted by the Chief Chemist, which were deemed reliable and decisive for the case.

3. Time-Bar of Demands for Differential Duty:
The appellants argued that the demands for differential duty in two cases were time-barred as the show cause notices were issued after the expiry of one year from the relevant dates. The Department countered this argument by stating that the assessments were provisional and not final, and the appellants had executed B-13 bonds under Rule 9-B of the Central Excise Rules.

The Tribunal agreed with the Department's argument, noting that the show cause notices indicated that the assessments were subject to chemical tests and were not final. The appellants did not provide any material evidence to counter this argument. Consequently, the plea of time-bar was rejected.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, confirming the classification of goods under the respective Tariff Items and rejecting the appellants' contentions regarding the reliability of test reports and the time-bar of demands. All appeals were dismissed.