1993 (9) TMI 181 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of products under specific sub-heading and eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 275/88-C.E.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellant submitted classification lists for their products of Iron and Steel, with one product being disputed under "Other cast articles of Iron & Steel - of Iron (un-machined)." The Assistant Collector approved the lists except for the disputed product, resorting to further verification under Rule 98. The appellant claimed classification under sub-heading No. 7325.10 with exemption under Notification No. 275/88-C.E. However, the Asstt. Collector approved the product under different chapters and denied exemption under Notification No. 275/88-C.E., stating it should be covered under Notification No. 223/88-C.E. The appellant was directed to pay duty accordingly.

The appellants filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original, arguing for classification under sub-heading No. 7325.10 and exemption under Notification No. 275/88-C.E. They cited previous decisions by CEGAT and Collector (Appeals) supporting their classification. The department had long been aware of the issue, with previous decisions accepted by both parties. The appellant contended that iron castings meeting specific criteria should be eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 275/88-C.E., as clarified by a Circular of the Board.

During the hearing, the appellant's representative reiterated their grounds for appeal, emphasizing the consistent manufacturing process for the products. Previous orders and judgments were referenced to support the classification of unmachined iron castings. The appellant argued that the Asstt. Collector erred in the classification, as the manufacturing processes remained unchanged over the years.

The Judge considered the appellant's request for waiving pre-deposit due to a prima facie case. The classification issue was revisited, with the Judge noting that the matter had been settled in a previous order, and there was no apparent change in the manufacturing process. The Judge disagreed with the Asstt. Collector's reasoning that the products were not unmachined castings due to surface treatment processes, as clarified by the Central Board of Excise & Customs guidelines aligning with the Tariff Act.

The Asstt. Collector also questioned the eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 275/88-C.E., but the Judge found that the appellants fulfilled the conditions for this exemption. Consequently, the Judge set aside the Asstt. Collector's order and allowed the appeal, granting the appellants the benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 275/88-C.E.