1999 (3) TMI 346 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Restoration of dismissed appeals due to failure to produce Clearance Certificate from the Committee of Secretaries; Change of name of the appellant company post-merger with Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL); Leviability of countervailing duty on imported item Nickel Oxide Sinter under Item No. 68 of Central Excise Tariff.

Restoration of Appeals:
The restoration application sought to restore 22 appeals dismissed for failure to produce a Clearance Certificate from the Committee of Secretaries. The appellants contended that they had the certificate on the day of the hearing but it was not linked, leading to the dismissal. The Tribunal allowed the restoration application as the Committee of Secretaries had granted permission to pursue the appeals, thereby restoring all 22 appeals to their original numbers. The change of name application post-merger with SAIL was also granted based on a Gazette Notification.

Levying of Countervailing Duty:
The appeals raised the question of whether countervailing duty on the imported item Nickel Oxide Sinter was leviable under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the plea that the duty was not applicable as the item was not manufactured in India and that it could not be classified under Item 68. The Commissioner relied on a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Khandelwal Metal and Engineering v. Union of India. The appellants argued that the issue had been referred to a Larger Bench by the Supreme Court in the case of Hyderabad Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, but the Tribunal noted that previous judgments had already addressed the issues against the appellants. Therefore, the appeals were rejected on merits based on the Supreme Court's decisions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the restoration of appeals and the change of name post-merger. However, the appeals regarding the leviability of countervailing duty on Nickel Oxide Sinter were rejected based on previous Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal found that the issues raised in the appeals had been conclusively answered by the Apex Court, leading to the rejection of the appeals on their merits.