2004 (1) TMI 474 - AT - Central Excise

DEPB benefits denied for bathroom radiators made from steel tubes; Tribunal upholds rejection, emphasizes procedural fairness

HORIZON INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Versus CC (ICD), TKD, NEW DELHI

HORIZON INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Versus CC (ICD), TKD, NEW DELHI - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 136 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Availability of DEPB for seamless/butt welded steel pipe fittings made from seamless/ERW steel tubes known as bathroom radiators.Analysis:The appeal involved a dispute regarding the availability of Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) benefits for specific goods manufactured by M/s. Horizon Industrial Products Pvt. Ltd. The appellants claimed DEPB benefits under entry no. 117 of the Engineering Group Code 61 for their bathroom radiators made from seamless/ERW steel tubes. However, the Commissioner of Customs initially allowed DEPB under a different entry, leading to confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties. Upon appeal, the matter was remanded for a detailed order. The Commissioner, in the subsequent order, rejected the DEPB benefits under any entry, including entry no. 117, despite agreeing that the goods did not fall under the previously chosen entry. The appellants argued that the Department's inconsistent stance and narrow interpretation of 'steel pipe fittings' in entry no. 117 were unjust. They also mentioned eligibility under a different entry, entry no. 152, for galvanized pipes/tubes with specific wall thickness.The Respondent, represented by Shri U. Raja Ram, contended that the appellants could not introduce a new claim for DEPB benefits under entry no. 152 at the appeal stage, citing a Supreme Court decision prohibiting new cases in appeals. The Tribunal noted the initial discrepancy in the Commissioner's decision and the subsequent agreement to discard the previously chosen entry. The appellants withdrew their claim under entry no. 117 during the hearing, and the Tribunal concurred with the Respondent that introducing a new claim at the appeal stage was impermissible, as established in the Supreme Court precedent.Furthermore, the appellants challenged the Commissioner's finding that the bathroom radiators were not entitled to DEPB benefits due to not being listed under any entry in the Engineering Group 61 of the DEPB Schedule. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants that such a broad finding without prior notice to the appellants was improper. The Tribunal clarified that such a sweeping decision should not apply to future cases, emphasizing the importance of due process and specific notice to the parties involved.In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of based on the above considerations, highlighting the need for consistent application of DEPB benefits, adherence to procedural fairness, and the prohibition against introducing new claims at the appeal stage as established in legal precedents.