9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2000 (7) TMI 716 - AT - Central Excise
Issues: Classification of Furnace Oil under Central Excise Tariff Act
Analysis: The appellants challenged the order-in-appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) regarding the classification of 'Furnace Oil' under Heading 2707.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The appellants had initially classified the product under Heading 2710.90, which was approved. The dispute arose due to the predominance of aromatic constituents in the product, leading to the classification under Heading 2707.90. The adjudicating authority relied on a letter from the supplier of inputs, M/s. SAIL, confirming the predominance of aromatic constituents. However, the appellants were not provided a copy of this crucial letter during the proceedings. Subsequently, the appellants obtained the letter and sought clarification from M/s. SAIL, which was not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). This lack of disclosure and consideration of important evidence raised concerns of procedural fairness and natural justice. Reconsideration of Classification: The appellants sought classification of the product under Heading 2710.90, which pertains to petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals. However, upon inquiry from the Bench, the Counsel failed to establish that the inputs used in manufacturing the product were derived from petroleum oils or oils obtained from bituminous minerals. Considering the procedural irregularities and the need for further examination of the issue, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication. Both the appellants and the revenue were granted the opportunity to present evidence, and the adjudicating authority was directed to provide a personal hearing to the appellants before deciding on the classification issue. This decision aimed to ensure a fair and thorough reconsideration of the classification matter in light of the evidentiary and procedural lapses identified during the appeal process.
|
