1992 (2) TMI 89 - HC - Central Excise

Court rules in favor of petitioners on excisability of trusses & purlins under Central Excise Act

EFF AAR FABRICATIONS Versus UNION OF INDIA

EFF AAR FABRICATIONS Versus UNION OF INDIA - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 186 (Mad.) Issues:- Whether trusses and purlins can be treated as excisable goods under the Central Excise Act, 1944.- Whether the Department can proceed with the adjudication of the issue while an appeal is pending before the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.Analysis:1. Treatment of Trusses and Purlins as Excisable Goods:The main issue in this case revolves around whether trusses and purlins can be considered excisable goods under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellate authority had initially ruled that trusses and purlins were not excisable goods but later modified the decision to state that they are excisable goods as per the Central Excise Tariff Act, effective from 1-3-1988. The petitioners, relying on a decision of the Rajasthan High Court, argued that the Department should not proceed with further adjudication while an appeal is pending before the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The court acknowledged the merit of the petitioners' claim, especially considering the pendency of the issue before the Tribunal. Consequently, the court directed that further action pursuant to the notices shall be deferred by the Department pending the final disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. This decision aims to ensure justice and safeguard the interests of both parties until the appeal outcome is known.2. Adjudication During Pending Appeal:The second issue pertains to whether the Department can continue with the adjudication of the excisability of trusses and purlins while an appeal is pending before the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The petitioners argued that the Department should not proceed with further adjudication until the Tribunal's decision is rendered, especially since the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Madras had already ruled in their favor for the period before 1-3-1988. The court agreed with the petitioners and directed that any further action based on the impugned notices should be deferred until the Tribunal's decision is finalized. This approach ensures that both parties have the opportunity to present their case and that the Department does not take any action that could prejudice the pending appeal process. The court's decision aims to maintain fairness and procedural justice in the adjudication process.In conclusion, the High Court of Judicature at Madras, in a judgment delivered by Justice D. Raju, addressed the issues surrounding the excisability of trusses and purlins under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, directing the Department to defer further action pending the final disposal of the appeal before the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. This decision ensures that both parties' interests are safeguarded and that the adjudication process is conducted fairly and in accordance with the law.