1992 (9) TMI 227 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal exempts duty pre-1983, imposes duty post-1983 on cold rolled strips. Confiscation set aside.

The Tribunal held that duty is not payable for cold rolled strips produced from duty paid hot rolled strips up to July 1983. It directed a redetermination ... Proforma Credit Issues:1. Whether cold rolled strips produced from duty paid hot rolled strips are liable to pay duty again.2. Whether the appellants are entitled to proforma credit.3. Classification of the product as cold rolled strips.4. Liability of duty for the period post 1-8-1983 and on seized goods.5. Confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine, and penalty.Analysis:Issue 1:The appellants argued that cold rolled strips produced from duty paid hot rolled strips are not liable to pay duty again based on Tribunal judgments in Atma Steel and Steel Strips cases. The Tribunal agreed, citing the judgments and held that duty is not payable for the period up to July 1983 based on these precedents.Issue 2:Regarding proforma credit, the Revenue contended that since the appellants did not have an L-4 license, they were not eligible for proforma credit. The Tribunal directed a redetermination of duty after considering the duty paid on hot rolled strips for the period post 1-8-1983.Issue 3:The Tribunal analyzed the manufacturing process and machinery used by the appellants to determine the classification of the product as cold rolled strips. It concluded that the product manufactured by the appellants indeed qualified as cold rolled strips and was liable to duty post 1-8-1983.Issue 4:For the period post 1-8-1983 and on the seized goods, the Tribunal observed a change in tariff entry recognizing hot rolled and cold rolled strips separately. It held that duty was payable on the cold rolled strips produced by the appellants after this date, including on the seized stock.Issue 5:Regarding confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalty, the Tribunal found no grounds for confiscation or penalty imposition based on the legal position pre-1-8-1983. Thus, it set aside the confiscation and the penalty imposed.In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by upholding duty liability for post-1-8-1983 period, directing redetermination of duty considering duty paid on hot rolled strips, and setting aside confiscation of goods and penalty imposition.