TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (9) TMI 302
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssistant Collector of Central Excise by his order dated 28-1-1981 and upheld by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay by his order dated 23-2-1983 is correct. 2. The appellants are holders of L-4 Licence No. 1/Copper/77 for the manufacture of products falling under Copper and Copper Alloys Item No. 26A of C.E.T. in their factory at Plot No. A-142/149, Road No. 23/24, Wagle Industrial Estate, Bombay Thane. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Thane issued show cause notices dated 8-7-1980 for the period 23-5-1979 to 30-4-1980 calling upon the appellants to show cause to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Thane why duty of Rs. 5,35,755.64 be not realised from them. A similar notice dated 21-8-1930 for the perio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... exempted under Notification No. 119/66, dated 16-7-1966 as amended, and without filing proper classification list, a contravention of Rule, 173B, 173F, 9(1) and 173G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. The appellants showed cause and the Assistant Collector by his order dated 24-1-1983 upheld the demand. The order was upheld in appeal by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay by his order dated 23-1-1983. 4. In the grounds of appeal, it is urged that Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) finding that the `Pieces' cannot be equated with `Straight lengths' is wrong because in the delivery challans and invoices bundles and pieces were mentioned. Wires cleared under Item 68 of C.E.T. were referred in the delivery ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in decisions of the Government of India filed classification lists in respect of copper and brass rods at nil rate of duty under Item 26A(1a) of C.E.T. read with Notification No. 119/66-C.E., dated 16-7-1966. Classification List No. 1/79 was approved on 18-5-1979 and Classification List No. 2/79 was approved on 29-12-1979 by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Thane. The Excise authorities did not allow the appellants clearance of the copper and brass rods at nil rate of duty under Item 26A(1a) of C.E.T. read with Notification No. 119/66-C.E., dated 16-7-1966 but insisted that appellants should pay duty at 8% ad valorem under Item 68 of CET. Appellants contended that M/s. Alcobex Metals Private Ltd. Jodhpur and M/s. Bhandari Metals C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h and bundles indicate rods in coil form. There was thus no suppression. The time limit of 5 years was not applicable as there was no suppression or mis-statement but time limit of only 6 months was applicable. The whole claim was, therefore, time barred. 5. On behalf of the respondent, Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, SDR submitted that in the first classification list says about products above 10 mm. but the appellants did not mention the manufacture of products of less than or upto 10 mm diameter. In the second classification list, there was mention of brass rods in coil forms but no mention of diameter of brass rods or there being any product in straight length. There was thus clearly suppression. He submitted that appellants manufactur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the invoices were in straight length. We do not think that we should interfere with concurrent findings of the fact by the two authorities when the appellants had failed to establish that pieces meant straight length. According to ISI specifications, wire rods of copper should have thickness of more than 10 mm. In this case the product in question is of thickness 10 mm or less. Hence they are not classified under Item 26A(1a). Accordingly, Item 68 of the CET is more appropriate for these goods. On going through the classification list, there can be no doubt that the appellants had not given necessary particulars by which the Excise authorities could have come to conclusion that the appellants were also manufacturing product which was ....