9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 642X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rief are that the Tariff description of Heading No. 68.03 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, covered slag wools, rock wool and similar mineral wools. Rock wool was exempted from payment of Central Excise duty as per Notification 59/90-C.E. dated 20-3-90. This Notification was amended by Notification No. 38/91-C.E. dated 25-7-91 withdrawing the exemption granted to rock wool. Simultaneously, another Notification was issued namely, Notification 60/91 dated 25-7-91 granting exemption to all goods falling within Chapter 68 and containing more than 25% by weight of fly ash or Phospho Gypsum or both, from the whole of duty of excise. 3. RIL, holder of central excise licence LF No. 1/91, submitted a classification list effective ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GAT against this Order-in-Appeal remanding the case to the Assistant Commissioner, the Hon ble Tribunal rejected the stay application vide its Stay Order 523/2000, dt. 17-7-2000 and the case is pending with the said Assistant Commissioner, Div. VIII, Hyderabad. 4. When the matter stood thus, on the basis of intelligence gathered that RIL were not using fly ash in the manufacture of their products and were availing the exemption wrongly, the officers of the Central Excise, Head Quarters, Anti Evasion, Hyderabad, visited the factory premises of RIL, and the factory premises of a couple of other units who were supposed to have supplied fly ash and also the Regd. Office of RIL on 19-5-92. As a result of the exhaustive investigation conducted, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e CEGAT. The said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the CEGAT, South Zonal Bench at Bangalore, in their order No. 1264/2002 dt. 25-9-02, whereupon this application has been filed on 22-10-02 in terms of Section 32PA of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 6. In the settlement application, among other things, RIL have have contended that the term mineral wool would cover slag wool and rock wool, and vice versa, the term rock wool would also cover slag wool and mineral wool and accordingly they will be covered by the exemption under Notification No. 59/90-C.E., dated 20-3-90 and hence, no duty would be attracted for the period 17-3-90 to 24-7-91. However, in respect of the period 25-7-91 to 28-2-93, the applicant has accepted the duty liabi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise Tariff heads. The Bench enquired whether there are any decided case laws laying down that a dispute on identification of goods to be assessed within the same Tariff Heading is not a classification dispute. 8. The Advocate filed a miscellaneous application dt. 4-1-2003 received in this office on 6-1-2003. It is mentioned therein that the appeal pending before Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo decision on remand by Hon ble CEGAT vide their Order dt. 15-11-96, and referred to during the hearing on 23-12-2000, has been disposed of by Commissioner (Appeals) by way of further the remand to Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Appeal dated 21-12-99, and that, therefore, it is pending with Assistant Commissioner for a decision. It is reques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case laws cited in the Misc. Application and urged that classification of goods cannot be determined on the basis of the exemption Notification. 10. Shri P. Suresh Kumar, Joint Commissioner stated that the Revenue has no objection to the admission of the application as it does not involve a dispute on classification of the goods. His only objection was that the applicant had not filed returns for the entire period and as such the same cannot be entertained in view of clause (a) under first proviso to Section 32E(1) of the CEA, 1944. The Advocate stated that the returns have been filed for the period subsequent to the period 25-7-91 and, hence, citing the order of the Principal Bench in Oriflame case, he said that the application merited a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted the duty liability for the period 25-7-91 to 28-2-93. The only request in this context is to allow them the facility of treating the sale price as cum-duty price with which the Revenue has no objection. As for the earlier period, the applicant s contention that the mineral wool is a generic term and will cover rock wool also and similarly rock wool will also cover other mineral wools, vis-a-vis the Department s contention, has to be examined in depth to decide about the dutiability of the goods manufactured during the period 17-3-90 to 24-7-91. The Bench has also taken note of the Advocate s undertaking that the applicant is not insisting on the issue of time-bar. 13. As all the conditions prescribed under Section 32E(1) are found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
