1999 (9) TMI 504 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of the product Penetrator 4893 under Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Review of the order-in-original by the Central Board of Excise & Customs.
3. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue including limitation and merits.
4. Interpretation of the corrigendum and its impact on the limitation period.
5. Examination of the product's classification under different chapters and relevant case laws.

Classification of the Product:
The appeal involved a dispute over the classification of the product Penetrator 4893 under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue claimed classification under 3801.90, while the order-in-original classified it under chapter 34 as an organic surface active agent preparation. The issue primarily revolved around the correct classification of the product for excise duty purposes.

Review by Central Board of Excise & Customs:
The Central Board of Excise & Customs directed the Collector of Central Excise to appeal against the order-in-original under Section 35E of the CE Act, 1944. The appeal was based on the classification issue of Penetrator 4893. The subsequent technical opinion of the Chief Chemist's CRCL, New Delhi, was brought into consideration, with arguments made regarding the binding nature of such opinions in legal classification matters.

Grounds of Appeal and Limitation:
The Revenue's appeal raised grounds on both merits and limitation. A preliminary objection was made regarding the review order of the Board, particularly focusing on the question of limitation not being raised as a ground of appeal initially. The issue of limitation was crucial, with arguments presented on the timeliness of additional grounds raised through a corrigendum after the expiry of one year from the date of the original order.

Interpretation of Corrigendum and Limitation Impact:
The corrigendum issued by the Central Board was analyzed to determine its impact on the limitation period for filing appeals. It was argued that the corrigendum, raising additional grounds after the expiration of the prescribed time limit, constituted raising a fresh ground that was time-barred under Section 35E of the CE Act, 1944. The Collector's jurisdiction to file a review appeal on the question of limitation was questioned based on the timing of the corrigendum.

Product Classification and Case Laws:
The detailed examination of the product's classification under different chapters, particularly chapter 34 and chapter 38, was conducted. Arguments were made regarding the product's composition, principal activity, and relevance to the leather industry. Case laws were cited to support the contention that the product fell within the ambit of chapter 34 and was exempt under Notification 101/66. The importance of classifying the product based on its form at the factory premises, rather than its use after clearance, was emphasized.

Judgment Outcome:
After considering the submissions and records of the case, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal. The order-in-original was upheld, emphasizing that the matter was decided in favor of the respondents on both merits and limitation. The detailed findings on limitation and lack of suppression by the respondents supported the original order. Consequently, the Revenue appeal was dismissed, and the cross objection filed by the respondents was disposed of accordingly.