9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited [1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) ] is no longer a good law. 2. The appeal was posted for hearing on Board for week starting from 20-2-2006. Necessary intimation was also sent to the appellants. However, under their letter dated 20-2-2006, they informed that they have received hearing memo only 2-3 days before and requested for an adjournment. The case was not taken for hearing on 20-2-2006 but continued on Board for the week starting from 27-2-2006 and today, it was taken up for hearing. Nobody appeared for the appellants nor any request for further adjournment was received. There was sufficient time of more than 10 days before the appellants to appear today while the matter remained on Board for final hearing. Since the appellants h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8443.00. He, accordingly, confirmed the duty demanded in the above said show cause notices. The Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order has given a finding that the appellants have not given any factual details in evidence against the Assistant Collector s findings that the goods have attained the essential character of finished parts nor has this been controverted by them. The Assistant Collector has clearly brought out that from 1-3-1988 Central Excise Tariff in respect of ferrous and non-ferrous items is aligned to H.S.N. and hence, he was justified in relying on CEGAT decision under Customs Tariff which was based on H.S.N. The Commissioner (Appeals) accordingly rejected the appeal filed by the appellants. 4. In the appeal pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, certain changes were also made in the Section Notes as also the Chapter Notes of Chapters 72 73. The appellants, therefore, filed a classification list with effect from 1-3-1988 classifying their forged products under sub-heading 7326.19 and were paying duty under Notification No. 94/88 dated 1-3-1988 at the rate of Rs. 550/- per metric tonne and were regularly furnishing RT-12 returns. The returns for the month of March and April, 1988 were finally assessed by the Superintendent. The appellants thereafter filed three further classification lists effective from 14-7-1988, 28-7-1988 and 8-8-1988 classifying their forged products under heading 73.26 but the Superintendent of Central Excise, Nasik asked them to file a consolidated revised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adings in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act must be interpreted with reference to the Rules of interpretation and Section Notes. Rule 1 of the Rules of Interpretation of the Schedule specifically provides that classification shall be determined according to the terms of headings and any relative section or chapter notes. There is no provision in the Central Excise Tariff Act whereby the assessing authority must classify any goods with reference to the Explanatory Notes to the HSN. The show cause notice is not a show cause notice for a modification of classification list which was filed by them on 1-3-1988 and approved by the Assistant Collector on 7-6-1988 but it is merely a show cause notice demanding an amount without first mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellants in their appeal petition. We find that the appellants had filed classification list No. 40/88 effective from 1-3-1988 in which the products in dispute are described as under :- 1. Other articles of Iron Steel. Forged or stamped; but not further worked out subject to machining or surface treatments of - (a) annealing, tempering and similar heat treatments to improve the properties of the metal. (b) descaling, pickling, scrapping and other processes to remove oxide scale and crust formed during heating of metal. (c) rough coating intended solely to protest products from rust or other oxidation, (d) removal of small portions of the metal for testing purpose, and (e) re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce that parts have not attained the essential characteristics of motor vehicle parts/internal combustion engine parts/Crank Shaft. The classification has been done by the lower authorities based on the Interpretative Rules to the Central Excise Tariff Act. They have if not applied HSN Notes as has been claimed by the appellants in their appeal petition. Therefore, we are in full agreement with the lower authorities regarding classification of these products under Chapter 87 or 84 as the case may be. 7. We find that classification has been modified by the lower authorities under the impugned orders after giving due opportunity of hearing to the appellants and considering their defence. The decision was taken for modification of the classif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
