2012 (11) TMI 147 - AT - Central Excise

SCN Held that - Commissioner of Central Excise could not have passed the order upon points not arising out of the decision or order of the subordinate adjudicating authority and could not have relied on new material - Commissioner (Appeal) has gone beyond the show-cause notice and the relief sought from him. Therefore, the impugned order is not legal and proper, accordingly, is set aside - appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under different headings - Challenge to impugned order - Legal classification under Customs Tariff Act - Scope of show-cause notice - Jurisdiction of appellate authority.

Analysis:
The case involved a challenge to the classification of imported goods by the appellants, M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd., before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai. The appellant imported "Quakerol 1027 A1 and Quakerol 29 C A1" and initially classified the goods under Heading No. 2710.99. However, a show-cause notice was issued proposing a different classification under Heading 2712.10, based on a test report. The adjudicating authority determined that the goods should be classified under Heading No. 2710.00, which was further contested by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals), who classified the goods under Heading No. 3403.00. The appellant challenged this decision before the Tribunal.

The appellant's advocate argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) had exceeded the scope of the show-cause notice by classifying the goods under Heading 3403.00, which was beyond the original allegation. The advocate relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CCE, Delhi-III v. Carrier Aircon Ltd., emphasizing that the appellate authority should not go beyond the relief sought in the notice. On the other hand, the Revenue supported the classification under Heading 3403.00 based on the test report.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and emphasized the importance of the show-cause notice as the foundation for the case. It noted that the department's challenge to the classification was based on the test report, leading to the issuance of the show-cause notice for classification under Heading 2712.10. However, the adjudicating authority had classified the goods under Heading 2710.00, which was challenged by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal highlighted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had exceeded the scope of the notice by classifying the goods under Heading 3403.00, contrary to the relief sought and the original allegation. Citing the case of Carrier Aircon Ltd., the Tribunal held that the Commissioner could not pass an order on points not arising from the decision of the lower authority. Consequently, the impugned order was deemed improper and set aside.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief, if any, to the appellant. The judgment underscored the significance of adhering to the scope of the show-cause notice and the limitations on the appellate authority in deviating from the original allegations and relief sought.