2000 (6) TMI 390 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of product under Central Excise Tariff, Duty demand confirmation, Non-receipt of show cause notices.

Classification of product under Central Excise Tariff:
The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal confirming the duty demand raised by the Assistant Collector under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants manufactured plastic ball bearings Bobin holders, and the classification of their product was initially decided under TI 49 of the Central Excise Tariff. However, after legal challenges and appeals, the product was reclassified under TI 68 of the Tariff. The Assistant Collector confirmed the duty demand under TI 68, which was challenged by the appellants on the grounds that the show cause notices mentioned TI 49, not TI 68. The Tribunal upheld the reclassification, and it was deemed appropriate for the Assistant Collector to confirm the duty demand under TI 68 based on the reclassification by the Collector (Appeals).

Duty demand confirmation:
The Assistant Collector confirmed the duty demand after the reclassification of the product under TI 68. The appellants contended that the demand confirmation was invalid due to the difference in classification mentioned in the show cause notices. However, the authorities argued that the reclassification by the Collector (Appeals) justified the duty demand confirmation under TI 68. The Tribunal upheld the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals), stating that no fresh show cause notice was necessary after the reclassification and that the duty demand was rightly confirmed based on previous notices issued during the classification proceedings.

Non-receipt of show cause notices:
The appellants claimed that out of the 14 demand notices adjudicated upon, 13 were not received by them. However, there was no evidence or affidavit to support this claim, and the plea was not raised before the Collector (Appeals). The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the plea appeared to be an afterthought to avoid payment of the duty amount. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the Collector (Appeals) confirming the duty demand, concluding that no interference was necessary, and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the duty demand confirmation by the Assistant Collector under TI 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, based on the reclassification of the product by the Collector (Appeals). The non-receipt of show cause notices argument was deemed invalid, and the appeal was dismissed.