2018 (12) TMI 1019 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - reprocessed granules (RPG) - whether classified under heading 3902.10 and chargeable to duty or under 3926.90 with the benefit of Notification No. 15/94 CE dated 1/3/94 chargeable to Nil Rate of Duty? - provisional assessment - Held that - The classification list does not indicate any endorsement to the effect that the assessment has been made provisional under Rule 9(B) of Central Excise Rules. The appellant has also not enclosed of RT 12 returns and the invoices of the relevant period to proof that there is no mention of the classification being provisional by a specific endorsement. Therefore, the classification list has been approved finally under Heading 3926.90. The approved classification list cannot be modified with retrospective effect. Extended period of limitation - Held that - As the classification list was approved finally the demand cannot be raised by invoking the extended period of limitation treating the assessment to be provisional, which is not apparent from the facts and records of the case. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of reprocessed granules (RPG) under heading 3902.10 or 3926.90, provisional assessment during the subject period, re-classification of RPG prospectively or retrospectively, retrospective amendment of Section 11(A) of the Act, demand of Central Excise duty, levy of interest and penalty.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Ld. Commissioner's order following a remand order by CESTAT. The CESTAT directed the Adjudicating Authority to consider the appellant's contentions regarding the effective date of revised classification under Heading 39.02 and whether the assessments were provisional during the subject period. The case was re-heard by the Ld. Commissioner after the remand order.

2. The main issue revolved around the classification of RPG under heading 3902.10 or 3926.90. The appellant argued that the RPG should be classified under 3926.90 with the benefit of a Nil Rate of Duty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty demand, interest, and penalty, leading to the appeal.

3. The appellant contended that there was no order of provisional assessment during the subject period, citing relevant legal precedents. They argued that without a specific order under Rule 9(B) of Central Excise Rules, the clearance of goods cannot be treated as provisionally assessed.

4. The appellant further argued that the demand was time-barred, as the classification lists were finally approved within the normal limitation period. They emphasized that the retrospective amendment of Section 11(A) by the Finance Act, 2000, does not allow the Department to reopen closed assessments beyond the normal period.

5. The Tribunal examined the submissions and records. It was determined that no order of provisional assessment was issued during the subject period. The approval of the classification list under Heading 3926.90 was final, and there was no provision for retrospective modification. The demand raised in 2001 for the period beyond the normal limitation was deemed incorrect.

6. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief. The Tribunal ruled that the demand could only be raised within the normal limitation period, and the classification list approved finally could not be modified retrospectively.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues of classification, provisional assessment, retrospective amendment, demand of Central Excise duty, and related aspects, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and conclusions.