1996 (6) TMI 254 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Competency of Collector (Appeals) to decide classification not claimed by litigants.
2. Authority of Collector to grant suo moto refund exceeding the demanded differential duty.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal challenges the order of the Collector (Appeals) who classified imported goods under Tariff Item 90.29(1), different from the initial classification under Tariff Item 90.29(2). The appellant argued that the Collector (Appeals) overstepped by classifying the goods under an unclaimed tariff item. However, the Tribunal found that the Collector (Appeals) had the authority to modify lower authorities' orders. The Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals)'s classification, stating that it was supported by evidence like drawings and literature provided during the appeal stage. The Tribunal noted that the original classification under Tariff Item 90.29(2) was deemed incorrect based on new evidence presented during the appeal.

Issue 2:
Regarding the second issue of whether the Collector could grant a refund exceeding the demanded differential duty, the Tribunal examined the Collector (Appeals)'s decision to allow consequential relief to the respondents. The Tribunal reasoned that if the refund amount due to a change in classification exceeded the differential duty demanded, it was permissible as long as the refund did not exceed the total duty amount collected from the importer. The Tribunal concluded that since the refund did not surpass the total duty collected, there was no issue with the Collector (Appeals) granting a refund greater than the differential duty demanded. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Collector (Appeals)'s decision on the refund issue.