9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (4) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Tariff item 27(a)(ii) or not. The rods were manufactured by the petitioners from aluminium cost ingots/bare manufactured from odd scrap of aluminium. The petitioners have contended that the product is known as aluminium rods covered by IS:5047 (Part I) 1969 para 2.2.16. They have contended that during the material time wire rods alone were excisable under Tariff Item 27(a)(ii), and not the rods, as such Shri J. B. Mehta, Partner of Petitioners firm who appeared for the personal hearing did not, however, deny that there was no separate I.S. Specification for aluminium wire rods. He, however, referred to the I.S. Specification for Copper wire rods as given in l.S. 3288 (Part 1) 1965 para 2.2.9., by way of analogy. 3. Another point that Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 214/77 reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 2000/- and the penalty from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 300/- would support the petitioners above contention. 4. Finally Shri J.B. Mehta, submitted that if their contention regarding dutiability of the product is not accepted then at least the demand for duty should be modified by giving them set-off of the duty paid on the aluminium scrap at the crude stage and also providing for a reasonable melting loss. 5. Government have carefully considered all the submissions of the petitioners. Regarding the excisability of the goods, Government observe that the product is aluminium rods in coil form. By the petitioners own admission there is no separate I.S. Specification for rods and wire rods. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty appears to be reasonable. The classification list filed by them declaring the goods as non-excisable was approved by the department. The petitioners were thus guided by the department's own approval of the classification list. The fact that the classification was later on revised would not mean that in clearing of the goods without payment under the classification list approved earlier the petitioners committed any offence. They cannot be penalised for the wrong approval of the classification list by the department. Government therefore set aside the order in appeal in so far as it relates to the redemption fine and penalty. 8. Regarding the petitioner's plea that in any case the duty demand should be modified by giving a set off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
