2001 (1) TMI 677 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of industrial coolers under Tariff Heading 84.19 of the CETA.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 155/86, Notification No. 51/93, and Notification No. 83/93.
3. Differential duty demand for the periods 28-2-1993 to 22-4-1993 and 22-6-1993 to 28-7-1993.
4. Validity of penalty imposed.
5. Refund of the deposited duty amount.

Classification of Industrial Coolers:
The appellants manufactured industrial coolers classified under Tariff Heading 84.19 of the CETA. They initially paid duty at a concessional rate under Notification No. 155/86, which was later replaced by Notification No. 51/93. Subsequently, Notification No. 83/93 reinstated the concessional rate. The Tribunal noted that the appellants were entitled to the concessional rate during the gap period between the notifications. Thus, the demand for differential duty for the period 28-2-1993 to 22-4-1993 was set aside.

Applicability of Notifications:
The Tribunal observed that the appellants wrongly availed the concessional rate under Notification No. 51/93 for the period 22-6-1993 to 28-7-1993. The appellants admitted the validity of the demand for this period and had already paid the disputed amount. Consequently, the demand for this period was upheld.

Differential Duty Demand:
Regarding the penalty, the appellants argued for a reduction since they had deposited the duty before the show cause notice. The Tribunal reduced the penalty amount to Rs. 10,000. The appellants also requested a refund of the duty amount deposited for the period 28-2-1993 to 22-4-1993. However, the Tribunal clarified that they could not order the refund, leaving it to the Department's discretion.

Validity of Penalty Imposed:
The Tribunal partially set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals) and partly upheld it, reducing the penalty amount based on the circumstances of the case and the early deposit of duty by the appellants.

Refund of Deposited Duty Amount:
While acknowledging the deposit of the duty amount for the period 28-2-1993 to 22-4-1993 under protest, the Tribunal clarified that they could not order the refund in the appeal. The decision on the refund would be at the discretion of the Department based on the law.

Overall, the appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal providing relief to the appellants where legally permissible and upholding the demands and penalties for the relevant periods as per the notifications and circumstances of the case.