2004 (8) TMI 477 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant disputes classification of grinding rolls, time-bar issue raised, violation of natural justice found.

BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD

The appellant challenged the Commissioner's classification of grinding rolls under 8404.00, arguing they should be classified under 7325.10. The Tribunal ... Classifiaction - Demand - Limitation - Extended period - Overlapping period - Adjudication - Natural justice Issues: Classification and Time BarClassification Issue Analysis:The appellant challenged the Commissioner's order on grounds of classification, claiming that grinding rolls were cast articles of iron, not steel. They argued that when supplied independently, the rolls were classified under sub-heading 7325.10, not 8404.00. Referring to a Tribunal decision, they contended that the rolls, after proof machining, fell under Chapter 73, not Chapter 89. However, the Revenue argued that the rolls were parts of bowl mills, classified under 8404.00 when supplied with mills. The Commissioner's classification under 8404.00 was upheld as the rolls were ready-to-use components of bowl mills, not merely cast articles of iron.Time Bar Issue Analysis:Regarding limitation, the appellant highlighted three show cause notices issued within six months, but argued that a subsequent notice for the same period was time-barred. They cited various decisions to support their stance, emphasizing that the extended period for demanding duty should not apply due to approved classification. The Revenue contended that suppression of facts justified the extended period, citing instances where notices were issued within five years of detecting irregularities. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's order violated natural justice by not providing hearings for all notices, remanding the case for correct quantification of duty and penalty after hearing the appellant on all show cause notices.