1999 (5) TMI 107 - AT - Central Excise

Machined castings - ineligible for benefit of exemption under Notification No. 178/88-C.E. - Demand - Limitation

Summary

Issues:
Classification of cast articles of copper under tariff headings 7419.91 and 7419.99, Benefit of exemption notifications, Duty evasion due to proof machining, Imposition of penalty, Limitation period for recovery of duty, Historical dispute between assessee and department regarding classification.

Classification of Cast Articles of Copper:
The case involved the manufacturing of various copper articles, including cast articles falling under heading 74.19. The dispute arose when the department found that some castings underwent proof machining, leading to a change in classification from sub-heading 7419.91 to 7419.99. The notification exempting cast articles of copper was limited to sub-heading 7419.91, excluding those subjected to proof machining. The Tribunal concluded that the benefit of the exemption notification was wrongly claimed for machined castings.

Duty Evasion and Penalty Imposition:
The department alleged duty evasion by the assessee due to the non-disclosure of proof machining on the cast articles. A Show Cause Notice was issued seeking duty recovery and penalty imposition. The Collector confirmed a demand for duty and imposed a penalty on the assessee. However, the Tribunal found that the charge of suppression could not be sustained due to the department's historical knowledge of the processes undertaken on the cast copper pieces. Consequently, the demand for duty and penalty were barred by limitation, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.

Limitation Period for Recovery of Duty:
The Tribunal considered the aspect of limitation raised by the assessee. It was noted that there was a long-standing dispute between the assessee and the department regarding the classification of machined castings. The Tribunal observed that the department had prior knowledge of the processes involved in proof machining, and therefore, the charge of suppression could not be upheld. Consequently, the demand for duty and penalty were deemed barred by limitation, leading to the allowance of the appeal.

Historical Dispute Regarding Classification:
The judgment highlighted a historical dispute between the assessee and the department concerning the classification of machined castings. Previous orders and examinations by the Collector and Collector (Appeals) were referenced, indicating a consistent position that proof machining did not result in a new article. The Tribunal emphasized that the department's knowledge of the processes undertaken on the castings negated the allegation of suppression by the assessee during classification. This historical context played a crucial role in determining the outcome of the appeal in favor of the assessee.

---