TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 573
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fication No.287/1986, as amended by Notification No.8/1992 dated 01.03.1992, Notification No.120/1984, and Notification No.94/1989-CE dated 01.03.1989 (in short 'the 1989 Notification'). 2.2. It appears that the Department, upon verification, came to a prima facie conclusion that IOCL had misclassified certain products and consequently, wrongly, availed the benefit of the 1989 Notification. 2.3. Resultantly, a Show Cause Notice dated December 1992 (in short SCN) was served upon IOCL. The said SCN only indicated that IOCL had, wrongly, classified the subject products and, incorrectly availed the benefit of the 1989 Notification. IOCL responded to the said SCN vide reply dated 25.08.1983. In the reply, IOCL, particularly, took the stand that what purported to be a SCN was, in fact, not a SCN in the eyes of law. In particular, IOCL took the stand that it did not indicate as to what should be the classification qua the subject products vis-a-vis, which the Revenue had raised objection. 2.4. The reply filed by IOCL, however, did not impress the Adjudicating Authority, who vide the Order-in-Original dated 21.12.1993, classified the subject products, qua which objection has bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that IOCL had furnished all technical details in respect of the subject products. Consequently, the decision, according to the Adjudicating Authority, had to be based on, in so far as the classification was concerned, on the declarations furnished by the Assessee. Accordingly, the Adjudicating Authority classified the subject products under the following sub headings : "Products Sub Headings (i).TAK 40 3403.00 (ii).RP 150 2719.99 (iii).Gear Compound-30 3403.00 (iv).SM 85/175/260 3403.00" 3.6. Furthermore, out of the four products referred to above, exemption was extended only to the product referred to as RP 150, while exemption was denied qua the other three products. Pertinently, this apart, duty was demanded for the period spanning between 1992 and 1994. The duty element was calculated and reflected in the said order in the following manner : Sl No Name of the Product Clearance (in Litres) Value adopted (per Litre) (Rs.) Value (Rs.) BED @ 15% SED at 15% on BED 1 SM-260 40,200 36.00 14,47,200 2,17,080 32,562 2 SM-175 3,42,200 36.00 1,23,19,200 18,47,880 2,77,182 3 SM-85 5,01,716 37.00 1,85,63,492 27,84,524 4,17,679 4 TAK-40 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orted deficiencies in SCN had not been made an issue, there was, in a sense, acquiescence on the part of the IOCL. 5.1. Furthermore, Mr.Srinivas, sought to draw our attention to the fact that, even the classification of the subject products, had been indicated in the order of the Adjudicating Authority, which was passed, though, in the third round, i.e., in the order dated 31.10.2005. 5.2. In sum, it was Mr.Srinivas's contention that none of the findings of fact returned by the Tribunal had any relevance to the merits of the matter, as they had already been taken care of by the Adjudicating Authority. 6. As against this, Mr.Venkataraman, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the objection qua the deficiencies in the SCN went to the root of the jurisdiction of the Revenue to impose any liability on IOCL. It was the learned Senior Advocate's submission that the SCN had four deficiencies : (i) First, it did not re-classify the subject products, (ii) Second, it did not indicate the period, for which, duty was proposed to be levied, (iii) Third, it did not quantify the proposed duty, and (iv) Lastly, the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority in the third round seeks to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndicated above, that right at the very inception, when, reply dated 25.08.1993, was filed by IOCL, the objection with regard to the untenability of the SCN was taken by IOCL. For the sake of convenience, we may only extract the relevant assertions made in the reply dated 25.08.1993 : "..... As the show cause notice do not contemplate any specific classification /reclassification, denial of complete exemption from BED and contemplate only denial of SED that too on reasons not enumerated, and in the absence of details of further examination of product, study of the tariff and as the show cause notice do not specify any reasons or findings consequent to examination of the product and study of the tariff, we request the learned Assistant Collector to drop further proceedings as contemplated in the notice. It is also submitted that the show cause notice is not self explanatory and do not refer to any provisions of law, under which the proceedings are proposed. Hence the letter is not be treated as show cause notice, but as simply a letter not based on Law. ...." 12. Furthermore, the record shows that even in its third round before the Commissioner, IOCL continued to press the sai....