1998 (2) TMI 195 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Change in the title of the appeal.
2. Duty liability under Tariff Item 68.
3. Refund claim based on Tribunal's order.
4. Classification of the product under Tariff Item 68.
5. Dispute over duty classification and refund eligibility.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought a change in the title of the appeal from M/s. Shri Amarsinhji Mills Ltd. to M/s. Shri Amarshinhji Stationery Industries Ltd., which was approved by the department of Company Affairs. The Commissioner of Central Excise upheld the duty liability adjustment under Tariff Item 68 in the impugned order.

2. The appellant argued that they were entitled to a refund of duty deposited under protest under Tariff Item No. 14, following a final order by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had ruled that duty under Tariff Item No. 14 should be charged from the date of show cause notices. The appellant claimed that the respondents had no right to adjust the duty paid under Tariff Item 68 as no demand was raised for its recovery.

3. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing toner ink powder, had initially claimed classification under Tariff Item 68, which was approved by the competent authority. However, a show cause notice later demanded reclassification under Tariff Item 14, with duty from June 1980 to June 1982. The Tribunal's order restricted the duty under Tariff Item 14 to the date of the show cause notice, acknowledging the previous charging under Tariff Item 68.

4. The Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that the appellant had originally claimed classification under Tariff Item 68, which was approved before the demand under Tariff Item 14 was made. The refund claim was filed following the Tribunal's order, which limited the duty liability to Tariff Item 14 from the date of the show cause notices.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that since the appellant had claimed classification under Tariff Item 68 in their approved list, there was no error in the impugned order. The Tribunal affirmed that the duty was correctly charged under Tariff Item 14 only to the date of the show cause notices, as per their previous order.