1989 (10) TMI 131 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of product as printed or unprinted boxes for exemption from Central Excise duty under Notification No. 66/82-CE, retrospective demand for duty under Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, violation of principle of natural justice in not providing a copy of the Deputy Chief Chemist's report, acceptance of trade opinions by the Collector (Appeals) in determining the classification based on trade parlance.

Classification of Product:
The appellants submitted a classification list describing the product as "Solid Boxes-unprinted" to claim exemption from Central Excise duty under Notification No. 66/82-CE. The authorities contended that the product was printed boxes due to gravure printing, not eligible for exemption. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, considering gravure printing as decorative printing. The argument relied on trade parlance and judgments like Collector of Central Excise v. Krishna Carbon Paper Co. emphasizing trade meaning over dictionary definitions.

Retrospective Demand for Duty:
The Assistant Collector invoked the longer time-limit to demand duty under Section 11-A of the Act, alleging misrepresentation by the appellants in claiming exemption. The Collector (Appeals) limited the duty demand to six months, citing judgments like Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India supporting retrospective demands despite an approved classification list.

Violation of Natural Justice:
The appellants were not provided with a copy of the Deputy Chief Chemist's report, violating the principle of natural justice. The lack of discussion by the Collector (Appeals) on the trade opinions submitted by the appellants further raised concerns about procedural fairness. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing all relevant evidence to the parties and giving detailed findings on submissions.

Acceptance of Trade Opinions:
The trade opinions submitted by the appellants were not adequately addressed by the Collector (Appeals), raising questions about the consideration of trade parlance in determining the classification of the product. The judgment highlighted the need for detailed findings on trade opinions and a proper assessment based on trade practices.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter to the Collector (Appeals) for re-decision. The Collector (Appeals) was directed to consider the trade opinions, provide a copy of the Deputy Chief Chemist's report to the appellants, and ensure a personal hearing before reaching a fresh decision. The judgment emphasized adherence to principles of natural justice and thorough consideration of all relevant evidence in determining the classification of the product for Central Excise duty exemption.