1993 (12) TMI 133 - AT - Central Excise

Assistant Collector lacks authority to review own order; classification changes must be prospective. Epoxy Cast Components

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EX., CHANDIGARH Versus DENSONS PULTROTEKNIK

The judgment concluded that the Assistant Collector lacks the authority to review his own order and classification changes must be prospective. Epoxy Cast ... Classification Issues Involved:1. Can Asstt. Collector ReviewRs.2. Can Classification Lists (CLs) be changed retrospectivelyRs.3. Whether products are classifiable under 8547.00 or 3926.90Rs.4. Can clearances of 2 units be clubbedRs.5. Is demand on RT 12s maintainableRs.6. Exact value of clearances even if clubbed.Detailed Analysis:1. Can Asstt. Collector ReviewRs.The judgment addressed whether the Assistant Collector has the authority to review his own order. It was concluded that the Assistant Collector does not have the power to review the classification list. This was upheld by referencing the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Bawa Potteries v. UOI and Another, which established that the Assistant Collector cannot review his own order.2. Can Classification Lists (CLs) be changed retrospectivelyRs.The judgment examined if the classification lists effective from 1-3-1989 and 1-4-1989 could be changed retrospectively. It was determined that classification changes should be applied prospectively and not retrospectively. This was supported by the Collector (Appeals) in the Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 100-101/CE/CHD/91, which stated that the value of Epoxy cast components is not includible for determining the availability of the exemption as these products were held dutiable only from 13-1-1989.3. Whether products are classifiable under 8547.00 or 3926.90Rs.The primary issue was the classification of Epoxy Cast Components. It was argued that these components are not made entirely of Epoxy Resins as required by Heading 85.47. However, the judgment concluded that fillers added to Epoxy Resins are also insulating materials, thus making the components classifiable under Heading 85.47. This classification was supported by the Bombay High Court decision in X.L. Telecom Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI, which classified similar products under Heading 85.47.4. Can clearances of 2 units be clubbedRs.The judgment reviewed whether the clearances of M/s. Densons Engineers and M/s. Densons Pultroteknik could be clubbed for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. It was concluded that since both units are owned by M/s. Yamuna Gases Ltd., the clearances should be clubbed. The Tribunal decision in Kinjal Electricals (P) Ltd. was deemed not applicable to this case. Therefore, the combined clearances of the two units were considered for exemption eligibility.5. Is demand on RT 12s maintainableRs.The maintainability of the demand on RT 12s was questioned. The judgment noted that the demand raised for the period March to July 1989 was time-barred as it should have been raised by September 1989. However, it was also noted that the show cause notice dated 13-9-1988, which covered the same period, was raised within the five-year limit, making it valid.6. Exact value of clearances even if clubbed.The judgment determined the exact value of clearances, including Epoxy Cast Components, which should be included in the combined value of clearances of the two units. It was concluded that the value of clearances of such components would be includible in the combined value of clearances for the purpose of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. As the combined clearances exceeded the prescribed limit, the units were not eligible for the exemption under the said notification.Conclusion:The judgment concluded that Epoxy Cast Components are classifiable under Heading 85.47, and their value should be included in the combined clearances of the two units. The Assistant Collector does not have the power to review his own order, and classification changes should be applied prospectively. The clearances of the two units should be clubbed, and the demand on RT 12s is maintainable within the five-year limit. Consequently, the first five appeals filed by the Department were allowed, and the sixth appeal filed by the assessee was rejected. All six appeals were disposed of accordingly.