1988 (9) TMI 149 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of duty on hot rolled strips converted to cold rolled strips.
2. Classification of strips under Central Excise Tariff Act.
3. Applicability of previous Tribunal judgments.
4. Interpretation of Supreme Court judgments on similar matters.
5. Request for interest payment on duty paid under protest.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this appeal was the liability of duty on hot rolled strips converted to cold rolled strips by the appellants. The Department contended that duty was applicable on the cold rolled strips produced by the conversion process. The Assistant Collector and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld this view, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The classification of strips under the Central Excise Tariff Act was a crucial aspect of the case. The appellants argued that the classification changed over time, with cold rolled strips falling under a different category post a specific date. The appellants contended that no clearances occurred on the date when the classification changed, thus affecting the duty liability.

3. The issue of previous Tribunal judgments came into play, with the appellants citing a prior order related to the same question and involving the same appellants. The Tribunal was urged to follow this precedent, emphasizing that the order had not been overturned by the Supreme Court, making it binding.

4. The interpretation of Supreme Court judgments on similar matters was pivotal. The Tribunal analyzed the relevance of previous Supreme Court decisions, including the Empire Industries case and the Kiran Spinning Mills case. The Tribunal rejected arguments against following the earlier Tribunal order, aligning it with the Supreme Court's stance on the Kiran Spinning Mills case.

5. Lastly, the appellants requested payment of interest on the duty amounts paid under protest since 1982. The Tribunal deliberated on this plea but found no legal basis to award interest, ultimately rejecting the request.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellants based on the considerations of duty liability, classification, adherence to precedent, and alignment with Supreme Court judgments. The request for interest payment was denied due to the absence of legal provisions supporting such an award.