Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Ashoka Cement Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

1. aggrieved with the order of the collector (appeals) dated 17.9.1982, the department has filed this appeal.2. briefly stated, the respondents manufacture steel castings falling under tariff item 26aa(v). on checking the accounts it was noticed that the respondents manufactured gm bars in their factory and cleared them as if they were castings. but those bars are classifiable under t.i.26aa(ia). during the period october, 1973 to august, 1975 the respondents had cleared 4,808.042 metric tonnes of gm bars. to a show cause notice issued they replied that the gm bars manufactured by them were nothing but steel castings. the assistant collector passed orders on 18.10.79 holding that the gm bars were classifiable under t.1.26(aa)(ia). he ordered differential duty of rs. 6,02,240.73 be deposited and imposed a penalty of rs. 200/-. an appeal was preferred before the appellate collector, who initially dismissed the appeal on the ground that adequate court fee stamp had not been affixed.subsequently, in a de novo ation of the matter he held that the order of classification passed by the assistant collector was correct but restricted the demand to a period of one year from the date of.....

Judgment:

1. Aggrieved with the order of the Collector (Appeals) dated 17.9.1982, the Department has filed this Appeal.

2. Briefly stated, the Respondents manufacture steel castings falling under Tariff Item 26AA(v). On checking the accounts it was noticed that the Respondents manufactured GM bars in their factory and cleared them as if they were castings. But those bars are classifiable under T.I.26AA(ia). During the period October, 1973 to August, 1975 the Respondents had cleared 4,808.042 metric tonnes of GM bars. To a show cause notice issued they replied that the GM bars manufactured by them were nothing but steel castings. The Assistant Collector passed orders on 18.10.79 holding that the GM bars were classifiable under T.1.26(AA)(ia). He ordered differential duty of Rs. 6,02,240.73 be deposited and imposed a penalty of Rs. 200/-. An Appeal was preferred before the Appellate Collector, who initially dismissed the Appeal on the ground that adequate Court fee stamp had not been affixed.

Subsequently, in a de novo ation of the matter he held that the order of classification passed by the Assistant Collector was correct but restricted the demand to a period of one year from the date of show cause notice.

3. In this Appeal, the Revenue contend that it is the duty of the manufacturer working under the S.R.P. Scheme declare correctly all the goods manufactured and the assessee herein had removed G.M. bars in the garb of steel castings. The extended period was, therefore, justifiable.

4. When the Appeal was taken up for hearing, Shri Gopal Prasad, the Consultant for the Respondents, submitted that on the question of classification the Tribunal in Appeal No. E/43/83-B1 (Order No.106/86 dated 20.2.1987) had held that the GM bars produced by casting should be assessed under T.I. 26AA(v). He urged that as the Respondents' contention regarding the classification has been accepted by the Tribunal, there is no question of differential duty, much less for an extended period. He emphasized that the Appeal has to be dismissed in view of the decision on the classification.

5. Shri H.L.Verma, S.D.R., stated that in view of the decision of the Tribunal he had nothing further to add.

6. The present Appeal is only in regard to the demand for differential duty for the extended period. But the basis for the demand of the duty has been held against the Revenue in the order of the Tribunal cited supra. Hence the question of differential duty does not arise, much less a demand for the extended period. Hence this Appeal is dismissed.