2002 (6) TMI 275 - AT - Central Excise

Dispute over Goods Classification: Tribunal Invalidates Corrigendum Retroactive Classification

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CALCUTTA-IV Versus KESORAM RAYON

The case involved a dispute over the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff. The Asstt. Commissioner initially classified the goods under ... Adjudication order Issues:1. Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff2. Effect of corrigendum issued by the Asstt. Commissioner in light of the Finance Bill, 20003. Interpretation of Tribunal's order and its finalityClassification of Goods:The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff. Initially, the goods were classified under sub-heading 3920.21 by the Asstt. Commissioner. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued seeking classification under Heading 39.15, resulting in an order classifying the goods under Heading 39.15 from 1-3-1986. The matter was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals), who remanded it for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal then directed re-adjudication for the prospective period from 13-10-89, not retroactively.Effect of Corrigendum:In response to the Tribunal's order, the Asstt. Commissioner initially classified the goods under Heading 39.15 from 13-10-89. However, a corrigendum was issued on 27-4-2000, retroactively classifying the goods from 1-3-86 based on the Finance Bill, 2000. The Revenue contended that the corrigendum was valid under the Finance Bill, 2000. However, the Tribunal found that the corrigendum went beyond its directions and the provisions of the Finance Bill did not override the Tribunal's order. Thus, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly set aside the corrigendum.Interpretation of Tribunal's Order:The Tribunal's order from 1994 directed re-adjudication only for the prospective period from 13-10-89. As no appeal was filed against this order, it became final. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the corrigendum issued by the Asstt. Commissioner, retroactively classifying the goods from 1-3-86, was not in line with the Tribunal's directions and could not be sustained. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was rejected.This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues of classification of goods, the effect of the corrigendum in light of the Finance Bill, 2000, and the interpretation of the Tribunal's order, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and decision-making process involved in the case.