1989 (10) TMI 60 - HC - Central Excise

High Court upholds Central Excise Tariff classification, emphasizes timeliness and tribunal decisions

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the classification of manufactured items under the Central Excise Tariff. The Court found the writ ... Writ jurisdiction - Laches - Writ Jurisdiction - Challenge to Appellate Tribunal's order Issues:Classification of manufactured items under Central Excise Tariff, challenge to show cause notice and orders of authorities, jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226.Analysis:The petition was filed to challenge a show cause notice, an order by the Collector of Central Excise, and a decision by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). The petitioner, a manufacturing company, sought classification of certain items under T.I. 68 to avail exemption under specific notifications. The Assistant Collector classified the items under T.I. 19I(b) for duty payment, upheld by the Collector (Appeals) and CEGAT. The Tribunal considered the manufacturing process as valid and upheld the classification.The High Court noted that the writ petition was belated and lacked explanation for the delay, thus rejecting the challenge to the Tribunal's decision. Additionally, the Court held that since the Tribunal's decision was based on proper evidence and law, the High Court could not review it under writ jurisdiction. The evidence showed the manufacturing of bed sheets, covers, and linen by the petitioner, falling under T.I. 19, which was upheld by the authorities.Furthermore, the Court stated that the challenge to the show cause notice was consequential to the classification matter decided earlier. The petitioner could have appealed under Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, but it was unclear if such an appeal was filed. The Court found no merit in the petition and summarily rejected it, citing various grounds including the finality of the Tribunal's decision and the availability of appeal options under the Act.Therefore, the High Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the importance of timely challenges, the finality of tribunal decisions, and the proper appeal procedures under the relevant law.