2000 (5) TMI 356 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of UPS systems under CET Chapter headings 8543 or 8504, Demands confirmed on clearances during a specific period.

The judgment dealt with the classification of UPS systems manufactured by the appellants. The Revenue authorities classified the goods under CET Chapter heading 8543, while the appellants claimed classification as Static convertors under Chapter heading 8504. This classification discrepancy led to demands being confirmed on clearances during the period from July 1995 to July 1996.

The appellants filed two Misc. applications seeking permission to raise additional grounds of appeal related to the classification issue. However, the Tribunal rejected the first application as the clearances after May 1, 1995, were not based on an approved classification list. The second application to introduce an expert opinion obtained after adjudication was also dismissed due to the timing of the request and the precedent set by a Larger Bench decision.

The classification issue had been previously addressed by a Larger Bench of the Tribunal in another case, where it was upheld that UPS systems should be classified under Chapter heading 8543. The appellants attempted to distinguish this decision by pointing out alleged dissimilarities between static convertors and UPS systems, but the Tribunal found no merit in their arguments. Following the precedent set by the Larger Bench decision, the classification of the goods under Chapter 85.43 was upheld.

Regarding the demands raised for specific periods, the Tribunal held that the demands for the period July to December 1995 were sustainable as the show cause notice clearly indicated the proposed change in classification. The plea that demands should only apply from the date of the Board circular issued on April 24, 1996, was rejected since the show cause notices were issued within the normal period of limitation.

The appellants also relied on a Supreme Court decision regarding the prospective application of duty levy, but the Tribunal distinguished the circumstances of that case from the present situation. As the demands were raised within the six-month period from the relevant date and within the normal limitation period, the Tribunal deemed the demands valid. Consequently, the impugned orders were upheld, and the appeals were rejected.