1998 (7) TMI 257 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal remands case for fresh consideration, instructs re-examination of items and technical evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the Collector's order, remanding the case for de novo consideration. The Collector was instructed to re-examine the 44 items, ... Classification Issues Involved:1. Classification of extruded/forged products under the Central Excise Tariff.2. Applicability of Notification 223/88 regarding exemption from duty.3. Allegation of suppression of facts and intent to evade duty.4. Validity of the Collector's order rejecting appellants' claims.5. Non-consideration of technical evidence and previous Tribunal judgments.Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Extruded/Forged Products:The appellants, manufacturers of sintered and cold extruded forged products, claimed classification under Chapter Heading 73.26, which was initially approved by the department. However, the Assistant Collector sought to reclassify these products under various Tariff Items (68/Chapter Headings 84/85/86/87/89). The Collector, in his order, concluded that cold forging and cold extrusion are distinct processes, rejecting the appellants' claim that cold extrusion is a form of forging. He referenced various technical sources, including the McGraw Hill Dictionary and 'Materials and Process in Manufacturing' by E. Paul Degarmo, to substantiate his position.2. Applicability of Notification 223/88:Notification 223/88 exempts forging and forged articles from duty beyond 12.5% ad valorem. The appellants argued that their products should benefit from this exemption, claiming cold extrusion is a form of forging. The Collector disagreed, stating that the processes are different and thus the products do not qualify for the exemption. He noted that the terminology used in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, differentiates between hot drawn, hot extruded, and forging, indicating that these are distinct processes.3. Allegation of Suppression of Facts:The department issued a show cause notice alleging that the appellants misdeclared their products as articles of iron and steel, thereby evading appropriate duty. The Collector upheld this allegation, invoking the longer period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, due to suppression of facts and willful misdeclaration.4. Validity of the Collector's Order:The appellants contended that the Collector's order was flawed as it did not consider the extensive technical literature, affidavits, and expert opinions they provided. They argued that the order was non-speaking and did not address the individual classification of the 44 items in question. The Tribunal found that the Collector's order violated principles of natural justice, as it failed to engage with the technical evidence and previous Tribunal judgments adequately.5. Non-Consideration of Technical Evidence and Previous Tribunal Judgments:The appellants highlighted several Tribunal judgments, including those in the cases of Metal Impact v. C.C.E., Sikka Heat Treatment Centre v. C.C.E., and Aravali Forgings Ltd. v. C.C.E., which supported their position that cold extrusion is a form of forging. The Tribunal noted that the Collector's failure to follow these precedents constituted judicial indiscipline. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the Collector to examine the technical nature of the items and provide a detailed, reasoned order.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the Collector's order, remanding the case for de novo consideration. The Collector was instructed to re-examine the 44 items, consider all technical evidence, and follow the cited judgments. The Tribunal also left open the issue of suppression of facts for reconsideration. The appeals were allowed by remand for a fresh decision, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their case.