Excise classification and bank guarantee encashment turn on final adjudication and lapse of interim security

Disputed excisable goods were treated as falling under Tariff Item 15(1) rather than Tariff Item 15(2), so the duty classification favoured the assessee. Bank guarantees furnished only to secure the Revenue during pending proceedings were said to lapse once the dispute was finally adjudicated, and they could not be encashed thereafter as if they were cash deposits. The Revenue was therefore not authorised to realise the guarantees after final decision, and the amount collected was directed to be refunded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the disputed goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 15(1) or Tariff Item 15(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. (ii) Whether the Revenue could encash the bank guarantees furnished pursuant to the interim order after the appeal had already been decided on merits.

Issue (i): Whether the disputed goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 15(1) or Tariff Item 15(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The appeal had already been decided on merits in favour of the assessee, and the Court reiterated that the liability fell under Tariff Item 15(1) rather than Tariff Item 15(2). The Revenue's contrary contention was rejected.

Conclusion: The goods were liable to excise duty under Tariff Item 15(1) and not under Tariff Item 15(2), in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Revenue could encash the bank guarantees furnished pursuant to the interim order after the appeal had already been decided on merits.

Analysis: The bank guarantees were furnished only to secure the Revenue pending adjudication. Once the Court had finally decided the appeal, the guarantees were to lapse on their own and could not be treated as cash already deposited. The Revenue had no authority to encash them after the decision on merits.

Conclusion: The encashment of the bank guarantees was impermissible, and the amount collected was directed to be refunded.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the substantive excise classification dispute and obtained consequential protection against unlawful encashment of the bank guarantees.

Ratio Decidendi: Bank guarantees furnished to secure a pending dispute lapse upon final adjudication of the matter and cannot thereafter be encashed by the Revenue without authority; the final classification determination governs the excise liability.

---