9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 1170 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - Sulphur 90% WG with a brand name of COSAVET FERTIS - to be classified under sub heading 25030090 25030010 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or not - HELD THAT - It is found that on the same product having same process department had issued various show cause notices and in all the show cause notices except the present one issue has been settled by this Tribunal in C.C. E-BHARUCH VERSUS SULPHUR MILLS LTD 2022 (10) TMI 732 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD where it was held that 'there is no change in definition of manufacture and excisable goods under the Central Excise Act, nor it is there any new pronouncement of a Judicial or quasi-judicial forum affecting the concepts of manufacture or that of excisable goods or classification.' Thus, the impugned order in the present case is not sustainable - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the product "Sulphur 90% WG" under the Central Excise Tariff Act. 2. Determination of whether the manufacturing process amounts to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Applicability of NIL rate of duty on the product. 4. Validity of the periodical demands and Show Cause Notices (SCNs) issued. 5. Time-barred nature of the demands. 6. Consistency of the Tribunal's previous rulings on similar issues. Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of the Product: The assessee classified "Sulphur 90% WG" under sub-headings 25030090 and 25030010 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, clearing the product at NIL rate of duty. The audit party observed that the final product, marketed as "COSAVET FERTIS," is distinct from the raw sulphur used as an input. 2. Determination of Manufacture: The audit party contended that the process undertaken by the assessee to produce "Sulphur 90% WG" from raw sulphur involves significant changes, resulting in a new commodity with a distinct name, character, and use. This process was argued to amount to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, making the product liable for duty. 3. Applicability of NIL Rate of Duty: The assessee cleared the product under a NIL rate of duty, arguing that the product remains classified under the same tariff heading as raw sulphur. However, the Revenue argued that the resultant product is different from the input material and should be subject to excise duty. 4. Validity of Periodical Demands and SCNs: The SCN dated 02.09.2015 demanded Central Excise Duty of Rs. 40,82,980/- for the period 2013-14 to 2014-15, along with interest and penalties. The adjudicating authority initially dropped the demand, but the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision, leading to the current appeal. 5. Time-barred Nature of the Demands: The assessee argued that the demands were time-barred, as they were issued beyond the normal period prescribed. This argument was supported by the Tribunal's previous rulings, which had set aside similar demands on the same grounds. 6. Consistency of Tribunal's Previous Rulings: The Tribunal had previously decided similar issues in favor of the assessee in multiple cases, including orders dated 06.08.2012, 18.10.2022, and 15.05.2024. The Tribunal emphasized the principle that once an issue is settled and accepted by the department, it cannot be re-litigated in subsequent cases involving the same facts and parties. Judgment: The Tribunal found that the facts and issues in the present case were identical to those previously decided. It upheld the principle of judicial consistency, noting that the department had accepted the Tribunal's earlier decisions. The Tribunal concluded that the process undertaken by the assessee did not amount to "manufacture" and that the product was correctly classified and cleared at NIL rate of duty. The demands were also found to be time-barred. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Tribunal's previous rulings on similar issues were upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The judgment reinforced the importance of consistency in judicial decisions and the principle that settled issues should not be re-litigated.
|
