Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1988 (1) TMI 243

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... per. It is stated that the appellants purchase duty paid steel wire and get the same copper-coated by the process of electrolysis through job workers. The copper-coated steel wire is brought into the appellants premises and reeled to the desired sizes. The excisability of the product was determined by the jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise by his order in the form of a letter dated 2-7-1975 by which he held that as the wire in question was bare continuous wire in reels, and since flux was not used in the process of welding with such wires, they were not classifiable as welding electrodes falling under Item No. 50, CET but under Item No. 68, ibid with effect from 1-3-1975. In terms of the said decision, the appellants were .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Collector on 21-5-1976 stating that while they were depositing the amount under protest, they would request to be personally heard. To this, the Assistant Collector replied on 11-6-1976 to the effect that in view of the adjudication order dated 14-4-1976 passed after taking into consideration written as well as oral submissions, there was no further scope to grant personal hearing. The Assistant Collector s order-in-original dated 14-4-1976 was challenged in appeal before the Appellate Collector. In the Memo of Appeal, the demand for Rs. 53, 202/- was also challenged. The Appellate Collector, by his impugned order dated 17-9-1982, confirmed the Assistant Collector s order. It is this order that is now challenged in the present appeal befor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... goods except on payment of duty as welding electrodes and calls upon them to furnish particulars of past clearances. The demand issued by the Superintendent on 1-3-1976 also does not amount to a show cause notice. It is a peremptory demand in respect of the differential duty on clearances effected between 23-7-1975 and 28-11-1975. However, it is clear from the records that the appellants had represented against the demand and the Assistant Collector had, after considering the written representation dated 19-3-1976 as well as the submissions made during personal hearing, passed an order confirming the demand on 14-4-1976. The fact that the demand letter dated 1-3-1976 was not worded as a show cause notice should or would normally be worded, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellants relies on the Tribunal s decision in the case of Poonam Trading Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, 1983(14) E.L.T. 2455, which was based on the Bombay High Court s judgment in the case of Advani Oerlikon Ltd. v. Union of India, 1981 (8) E.L.T. 432. The Tribunal had held with respect to the goods therein, namely, copper-coated steel wires used in submerged arc welding, that they were not welding electrodes within the meaning of Item No. 50, CET. This view was inter alia based on the consideration that the contention of the appellants that electric current did not pass through the wire during the course of welding had not been controverted by the department. In the present case, however, it is the admitted position that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rovals accorded till the issue of a show cause notice for revising the classification, the demand for additional duty under the revised classification could be held enforceable only with effect from the date of the issue of the first show cause notice. In the present case, we are left with the Assistant Collector s peremptory order dated 3-12-1975 revising the classification without, as already noted, any disclosed fresh basis for doing so and the Superintendent s demand for duty dated 1-3-1976 which, in the light of the subsequent adjudication proceedings, could perhaps be treated as a notice to the appellants. Both these documents and the adjudication proceedings consequent thereto have resulted in a demand for duty for the period from 23 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates