1999 (1) TMI 133 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of Chlorine tablets, computation of duty value for duty exemption slabs under specific notifications, confirmation of penalty imposed, classification of other related products like Baby care cold sterilizer, Chloroscope, and Uribilirubin stix.

Classification of Chlorine tablets:
The ROM application was filed by the Revenue against the Final Order passed by the Tribunal, which classified Chlorine tablets as Sodium hypochlorite under Chapter Heading 2828 of the CET instead of the Revenue's claim under Heading 3808.90. The Revenue pointed out errors in the order, specifically related to the computation of duty value for duty exemption slabs under certain notifications and the confirmation of penalty imposed. The Tribunal noted that the order did not address the classification of other related products like Baby care cold sterilizer, Chloroscope, and Uribilirubin stix. The Tribunal found that the order did not provide findings on these aspects, leading to an apparent mistake in the judgment. The order was required to be recalled for re-hearing to address these issues.

Computation of duty value and penalty confirmation:
The Revenue challenged the duty computation and penalty imposed by the Additional Collector, seeking confirmation of a higher duty demand and penalty amount. The Tribunal observed that the Additional Collector had not given findings on the correct classification of products like Baby care cold sterilizer, Chloroscope, and Uribilirubin stix, despite considering their clearances while calculating duty. The Tribunal noted that the order did not address the Revenue's challenges regarding duty reduction, penalty imposition, and the correct classification of these products. This lack of findings on crucial aspects led to the decision to recall the order for re-hearing.

Classification of related products:
The Tribunal found that the Additional Collector did not provide a clear classification for products like Baby care cold sterilizer, Chloroscope, and Uribilirubin stix, even though their clearances were considered in duty computation. The Revenue had specifically challenged the duty demand and penalty imposed, seeking confirmation of higher amounts. The Tribunal noted that the order did not address the Revenue's challenges and failed to provide findings on the correct classification of these products. This lack of clarity and findings necessitated the recall of the order for re-hearing to address these issues comprehensively.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal, in response to the Revenue's ROM application, identified significant errors and omissions in the original order related to the classification of Chlorine tablets, computation of duty value, penalty confirmation, and the classification of other related products. The Tribunal found that crucial aspects were not adequately addressed, leading to an apparent mistake in the judgment. As a result, the order was recalled for re-hearing to provide comprehensive findings and address the issues raised by the Revenue effectively.