1985 (4) TMI 199 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Requirement of prior deposit of duty for hearing the appeal.
2. Legality of the short-levy demand based on Tariff Advice.
3. Correct classification of the imported goods under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule.
4. Relevance of previous Tribunal decisions on similar goods.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Requirement of Prior Deposit of Duty for Hearing the Appeal:
Shri Sundar Rajan, the Departmental Representative, raised a preliminary objection that the appeal could not be heard without the appellants making a prior deposit of the duty demanded. The Bench overruled this objection, stating that at the time of filing the revision application, the law did not require a prior deposit of the duty demanded as a condition precedent to the hearing and disposal of the revision.

2. Legality of the Short-Levy Demand Based on Tariff Advice:
The appellants argued that the short-levy demand was bad in law because it was contrary to the established practice of not levying additional duty on identical goods as per Tariff Advice No. 25 issued under Trade Notice No. 19, dated 14-12-1976. They also contended that the demand was issued pursuant to Tariff Advice No. 1 of 25-1-1978, which they claimed was illegal, null, and void. The Tribunal noted that the orders of the lower authorities did not mention any Tariff Advice and referenced the Supreme Court decision in Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, which held that quasi-judicial authorities cannot be controlled by administrative rulings or advices. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to classify the goods based on the merits of the dispute without reference to the Tariff Advices.

3. Correct Classification of the Imported Goods under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule:
The appellants argued that the goods should be classified under Item No. 68 of the CET, citing previous Tribunal decisions in Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Wash Udyog Sawantwadi and Sunrise Electric Corporation v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, which classified similar goods under Heading No. 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Schedule and Item No. 68 CET. Shri Sundar Rajan, however, contended that the goods should be classified under Item No. 17(2) CET, as held in the Golden Paper Udyog case and Uma Laminated Products case. The Tribunal, after considering the material before it, concluded that the essential character of the goods was derived from the plastic component, and thus, the goods were more appropriately classified under Item 68 CET, following the decisions in the Yash Udyog and Sunrise Electric Corporation cases.

4. Relevance of Previous Tribunal Decisions on Similar Goods:
The Tribunal analyzed various previous decisions, including the East India Industries case, Bhor Industries case, and Basant Pran Electric Co. case, and found that these cases did not have relevance to the present case. The Tribunal preferred to follow the decisions in the Yash Udyog and Sunrise Electric Corporation cases, which specifically dealt with the classification of "E class insulating paper" and concluded that the goods were correctly classifiable under Item 68 CET.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the correct classification of the imported goods was under Item 68 CET, and granted consequential relief to the appellants. The Tribunal clarified that the dispute was about the levy of additional duty and not the classification under the Customs Tariff Schedule.

← Previous Next →