Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1998 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1998 (2) TMI 410 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Availing concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 74/65-C.E. 2. Change in Tariff Entry 26A from 1-3-1981. 3. Time-barred demand for duty. 4. Interpretation of sub-item (1b) of Item 26A post-amendment. 5. Entitlement to benefit of Notification No. 74/65-C.E. after 1-3-1981. 6. Compliance with classification lists and RT 12 returns. Analysis: The appeal was filed against an order-in-original by the Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara, regarding the appellant's availing of the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 74/65-C.E. The appellant manufactured copper/brass products using raw materials like copper ingots and scrap. The Collector confirmed duty demand for a specific period, alleging ineligibility for the concessional rate beyond 1-3-1981 due to a change in Tariff Entry 26A. The appellant contested the demand, citing time-barred claims and compliance with approved classification lists and RT 12 returns. Post-amendment of Tariff Entry 26A from 1-3-1981, the issue arose regarding the interpretation of sub-item (1b) which includes waste and scrap. The appellant argued that their purchase of scrap was for remelting, not re-rolling, thus not affected by the amendment. The appellant emphasized their consistent filing of approved classification lists, mentioning the use of scrap and intent to avail Notification benefits, supported by monthly RT 12 returns detailing scrap utilization in final product manufacturing. The Tribunal analyzed the entitlement to Notification benefits post-amendment, emphasizing the absence of sub-item (1b) in the Notification's explanation. It concluded that the appellant was not entitled to the Notification benefits from 1-3-1981 due to the Tariff amendment, as determined by the Central Excise Commissioner. However, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's compliance with classification lists and RT 12 returns, noting no deliberate evasion of duty. Consequently, the demand for duty was limited to six months from the show cause notice date, partially allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.
|