1996 (5) TMI 132 - AT - Central Excise

Goods reclassification upheld under Tariff Item 52. Penalty reduced, demand not time-barred.

The Tribunal classified the goods as nuts and bolts under Tariff Item No. 52 instead of studs for Diesel Engines under Tariff Item No. 68. The demand ... Classification Issues: Classification of goods under Tariff Item No. 68 vs. Tariff Item No. 52, Time bar for demand beyond six months, Penalty and confiscation, Evidence of letter sent to Range Superintendent, Valuation of goods, Abatement of duty, Reduction of penalty and redemption fine.Classification of Goods:The case involved a dispute over the classification of goods manufactured by the Appellants, claimed to be studs for Diesel Engines under Tariff Item No. 68, while the Department argued they were nuts and bolts under Tariff Item No. 52. The Appellants contended that the goods were specifically designed for diesel engines and supported their claim with affidavits and certificates from dealers. However, the Department referred to a previous Tribunal case where it was held that studs are classifiable under Item 52. The Tribunal analyzed the nature and function of studs, ultimately concluding that studs are assessable under Item 52 due to their fastening capability.Time Bar for Demand:The Appellants argued that the demand for the period beyond six months was time-barred as they had informed the Department in a letter dated 24-4-1982 about the classification under Tariff Item No. 68. However, the Tribunal found that the evidence provided, a postal receipt, was insufficient to establish that the letter was sent to the Range Superintendent. As a result, the Tribunal held that the demand was not time-barred.Penalty and Confiscation:The Collector of Central Excise had confirmed a demand and imposed a penalty along with confiscation of goods. The Appellants contended that the penalty and confiscation were not warranted, given their belief in the correct classification and the absence of any direction from the Department to the contrary. The Tribunal reduced the penalty and redemption fine but upheld the impugned order.Evidence of Letter Sent:The dispute also revolved around the evidence of the letter sent by the Appellants to the Range Superintendent. The Tribunal found that the Appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the letter was sent, as the postal receipt did not contain details connecting it to the claimed letter. Therefore, the Tribunal could not establish that the Range Superintendent was informed as claimed by the Appellants.Valuation of Goods and Abatement of Duty:The Appellants raised concerns about the valuation of goods and the lack of abatement of duty, as they had cleared the goods at a nil rate of duty under an exemption. The Tribunal noted that no duty was actually paid, and the Collector had already provided some relief on the valuation issue. Consequently, the Tribunal held that no abatement of duty could be given.Reduction of Penalty and Redemption Fine:Despite upholding the impugned order, the Tribunal decided to reduce the penalty imposed on the Appellants and the redemption fine. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 2,500, and the redemption fine was decreased from Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 4,000. Overall, the Tribunal modified the penalty and redemption fine while rejecting the appeal on other grounds.