1991 (1) TMI 271 - AT - Central Excise

Appeals Allowed on Duty Demand & Remand for Refund Claims Classification Issue

The Tribunal allowed the appeals regarding the demand of the differential duty due to jurisdictional and time-bar limitations. The appeals concerning ... Demand - Limitation Issues Involved:1. Classification of Process Oils.2. Demand of Differential Duty.3. Refund Claims.Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Process Oils:The first two appeals concern the classification of 'Process Oil' under the Harmonised System of Nomenclature introduced on 1-3-1986. The appellant, a lube blending plant, received Inter Neutral and Heavy Neutral extracts, mixed and processed them, and used them exclusively in the tyre industry. The Department proposed classification under Heading 2710.99, later corrected to 2713.39 and 2713.30 for different periods, based on the predominance of aromatic constituents. The Assistant Collector confirmed this classification, but the Collector (Appeals) reclassified the products under Heading 2707.90. The Tribunal found that the classification dispute was not thoroughly examined by the lower authorities and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication, emphasizing that the classification must be determined before adjudicating refund claims.2. Demand of Differential Duty:The show cause notices issued for demanding differential duty were found to be invalid due to jurisdictional issues and time-barred limitations. The Tribunal noted that the Assistant Collector lacked jurisdiction to issue the notices for periods beyond six months, as Section 11A, amended on 27-12-1985, required the Collector of Central Excise to issue such notices. The Tribunal referenced the Meghmani Dyes & Intermediates case, highlighting that Rule 9(2) demands must follow the adjudication process under Section 11A. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders related to the demand of duty and allowed the appeals on this ground.3. Refund Claims:The remaining appeals pertain to refund claims for furfural extracts processed by the appellant. The claims were rejected on the grounds that the extracts underwent a manufacturing process, resulting in a new excisable commodity, making the classification under the same heading immaterial. The Tribunal found that the classification dispute was not adequately addressed and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal clarified that if the products are classified under Heading 2710.50, there would be no duty chargeable, and the direction to re-determine duty under Heading 2707.90 was unsustainable.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeals concerning the demand of differential duty due to jurisdictional and time-bar limitations. The appeals related to refund claims were remanded for de novo adjudication on proper classification. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the classification dispute and the adherence to proper adjudication procedures as per Section 11A.