2017 (1) TMI 1023 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds Central Excise duty demand on goods, penalties imposed

The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, confirming the demand for Central Excise duty on goods classified by M/s Vewvox Systems and imposing penalties and ... Classification of goods - complete kit of Colour Television Sets in SKD condition cleared to job workers of OEMs in kit form - whether classifiable under Sub-heading No. 8529.00 of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or not? - the matter was decided in the light of declaration of law by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Salora International Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi [2012 (9) TMI 276 - SUPREME COURT] - it is appellant's claim that the ratio of Supreme Court ruling in the case of Salora International Ltd. is not applicable in their case and their case is covered by another ruling i.e. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Versus Sony India Ltd. [2008 (9) TMI 19 - SUPREME COURT]. Held that: - the said case law in the case of Sony India Ltd. was considered and distinguished by the Hon’ble Supreme Court through their ruling the case of Salora International Ltd., we also find that this Tribunal had directed the Original Authority to proceed for De-novo Adjudication in appellant’s case with reference to the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Salora International Ltd. We do not find any ground advanced by the appellant indicating that the Original Authority has deviated from the direction given by this Tribunal to him for De-novo Adjudication. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The case of Sony India Ltd. held that classification shall be done according to headings & relevant sector or chapter Notes - invocation of Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules, are prohibited for certain categories of goods covered in Section XVI like the goods of CTVs. The case of Salora International Ltd. states that resort must first be had only to the particular tariff entries, along with the relevant Section and Chapter Notes, to see whether a clear picture emerges. It is only in the absence of such a picture emerging, that recourse can be made to the Rules for Interpretation. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues:- Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985- Applicability of Supreme Court rulings in tax evasion casesClassification of Goods Issue:The appeal involved the classification of goods by M/s Vewvox Systems under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant was accused of evading Central Excise duty by classifying Colour Television Sets as parts of TV Sets, leading to the issuance of two Show Cause Notices demanding differential duty. The matter was adjudicated, and while a significant demand was dropped, a portion was confirmed. The appellant challenged the Order-in-Original before the Tribunal, which remanded the case back to the Original Authority for fresh adjudication based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Salora International Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi. The Original Authority then issued the impugned order confirming the demand and imposing penalties and interest, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Tribunal.Applicability of Supreme Court Rulings Issue:During the appeal, the appellant argued that the Supreme Court ruling in Salora International Ltd. was not applicable to their case and cited Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. Sony India Ltd. as a more relevant precedent. However, the Tribunal noted that the Original Authority had considered and distinguished the Sony India Ltd. case, following the direction for De-novo Adjudication based on the Salora International Ltd. ruling. The Tribunal found no deviation by the Original Authority from its directive and dismissed the appellant's appeal, stating that there was no merit in interfering with the impugned order.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, emphasizing the importance of following the legal directions provided by higher courts and maintaining consistency in adjudication processes.