1999 (7) TMI 193 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under CETA of 1985, Benefit of Notification Nos. 51/93 and 46/94, Competency of Commissioner to discuss classification issue

In this case, the applicants manufactured "Signal Generators" and claimed classification under Heading 9031 of the CETA of 1985, which was initially approved by the Assistant Commissioner. However, on a revision application by the Department, the Collector (Appeals) ruled that the goods should be classified under Heading 8543. The issue of whether the applicants deserved the benefit of Notification Nos. 51/93 and 46/94, which required the goods to be machinery used for the production of a commodity, was also raised. The Assistant Commissioner, in a single order, addressed this issue along with Show Cause Notices seeking recovery of differential duty. The Assistant Commissioner concluded that the classification under 8543.00 was correct, denied the benefit of the notifications, and confirmed a demand of Rs. 12,16,617, imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,25,000 on the assessees.

The assessees then filed an appeal, arguing that the issue of classification could be raised at any stage of the proceedings. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that he was not competent to interfere with the issue of classification as it had been decided in the earlier order. The Commissioner upheld the lower orders, leading to the filing of the present appeals and applications for stay of the duty confirmed and the penalty imposed.

Upon consideration, it was found that the assessees had voluntarily filed classification lists claiming classification under Chapter 8543 and the benefit of notifications covering that specific Chapter heading. The Commissioner noted that the issue of classification had already been settled in the previous order, and the attempt by the assessees to raise it again was deemed inappropriate. The assessees were directed to deposit Rs. 6 lakhs towards the confirmed duty within 8 weeks, with the remainder of the duty and penalty pre-deposit requirement being waived upon this initial deposit. The assessees were given the option to make deposits in the PLA or Modvat account, and in instalments before the scheduled period.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the classification under Heading 8543, denied the benefit of the notifications, and directed the assessees to make a specified deposit towards the confirmed duty. The issue of classification was deemed settled, and the assessees were instructed to comply with the deposit requirement within a specified timeframe.