1997 (2) TMI 305 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of bolts, nuts, and screws; Classification of gears, shafts, couplings, and pulleys; Extended period of limitation; Allegations of suppression and misdeclaration; Applicability of case law in demand of duty.

The judgment pertains to two appeals filed by M/s. Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd. challenging orders by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Madras and Bangalore regarding the classification of various machine parts. The appeals were heard together due to similar issues. The appellant sought classification of bolts, nuts, and screws under Heading 84.66, which was accepted by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Madras. The revenue did not file cross objections, making this classification final. However, there was a dispute regarding the classification of gears, shafts, couplings, and pulleys under Heading 84.83, as per the revenue's classification under Heading 84.83 of the Tariff. The revenue argued for an extended period of limitation due to alleged non-disclosure by the appellants.

The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Madras had determined that the bolts, nuts, and screws in question were parts of machinery under Tariff Heading 84.56 to 84.60, leading to their correct classification under Heading 84.66. As no cross objections were filed by the Revenue, the classification of these items became final. On the other hand, gears, shafts, couplings, and clutches were specifically covered under Heading 84.83, as per Section note 2 to Section XVI of the Tariff. This note directs parts of machines to be classified according to specific rules, with items suitable for use with particular machines classified accordingly.

In the case of A. No. E/1136/88-B1, the Collector of Central Excise Bangalore confirmed the demand for various machine parts, relying on an earlier order by the Assistant Collector. However, this order was modified by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in a separate appeal related to bolts, nuts, and screws. The appellants argued against the extended period of limitation, citing no suppression on their part. The Tribunal noted that the appellants did not specifically mention the gears, shafts, couplings, clutches, and pulleys in the classification list, leading to a lack of grounds for interference with the Collector's order.

The Tribunal considered the case law cited by the appellants, emphasizing that the demand of duty was based on goods not described in the classification list, leading to allegations of misdeclaration and suppression. The Supreme Court decision referenced by the appellants was deemed inapplicable to the current case. Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the penalty imposed by the Collector of Central Excise Bangalore from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5,000, restricting the duty demand to specific machine parts. The final demand of excise duty was limited to Rs. 44,149.81, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.