TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 836
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enalties. This order the petitioners have challenged directly before the High Court primarily on the ground that this very product manufactured and exported by the petitioners was at the centre of dispute between the department and the petitioners in the context of Duty Drawback Scheme. The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in such litigation ruled in favour of the petitioners holding that the product is not Bearing Races but is Alloy Steel Forging (Machined). The petitioners would point out that judgment of the Tribunal was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the appeal filed by the department. According to the petitioners, therefore, without there being any material change, the departmental authority cannot take a different view and drive the petitioners to further litigation. 3. Brief facts are as under. The petitioners are engaged in manufacturing and exporting of various goods. One of the items so manufactured and imported by the petitioners, ran into controversy with the department in the context of duty drawback benefits made available by the Government of India with effect from 1.10.2011. The petitioners contended that the product in question was Alloy Steel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bling, etc. for making complete bearing. The Tribunal also referred to the inquiry conducted by Mahindra SEZ in which the Superintendent of Customs Authorised Officer, after carrying out detailed inquiry, had concluded as under : "Summing up the alloy steel forging machined, supplied by the vendors require further operations, such as hardening, quenching, tempering, face/id/od/grinding, honing, laser marking, which are done at Timken making it as 'bearing race' fit for use as part of roller bearing and hence, the classification of alloy steel forging machined under product code 61/68B appears more appropriate rather than under product code 61/428 or 61/530A, WHICH IS MORE SPECIFIC inasmuch as the alloy steel forging machined are neither rough or attained the character bearing race or machine part fit for ready use. Regarding the classification of the components received, namely alloy steel rings machined and carburized, the appropriate classification appears under CT 7325." 5. The Tribunal also referred to the certificates of the customers produced by the petitioners in which it was stated as under : "This is to inform that, We, SKF India Ltd., Chinchwa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication under DEPB Scheme nor independently any such proceedings were initiated. The Tribunal once again referred to the detailed inquiry carried out by the Customs authorities at Mahindra SEZ for examination of the issue in which it was ruled in favour of the petitioner. 8. On behalf of the department, it was contended before the Tribunal that the petitioners had classified the same product for its local clearances under Chapter 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as Bearing Races. To this the Tribunal, observed that while filing the shipping bill, this issue was examined by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Pipava. The petitioners had replied to the queries raised by the authorities and after being satisfied with the explanation, the exports were permitted. 9. The department carried the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court. SLP was dismissed in the following terms : "Delay condoned. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeals are accordingly dismissed." 10. It is stated and not disputed before us that after the said judgment of the Tribunal, as confirmed by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have challenged in the present petitions. 12. Appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel Shri Dave submitted that the Commissioner has reopened the issue which was concluded by the Tribunal and which judgment was confirmed by the Supreme Court. Under identical facts, it was not open for the department to reagitate the question. The Commissioner was bound by the judgment of the Tribunal and could not have taken a different view. Merely because the issue in the present case arises in the context of DEPB benefits, as against the one decided by the Tribunal concerning the Duty Drawback Scheme, would not enable the Commissioner to take a different view. The relevant entries and description of goods in both sets of export benefits being identical and the product being common, the Commissioner was bound to follow the judgment of the Tribunal. He therefore, urged the Court to exercise writ jurisdiction instead of driving the petitioners to the requirement of filing statutory appeals which would in turn, require the petitioners to make mandatory predeposit. He submitted that the alternative remedy is therefore, not efficacious since it casts an onerous duty on the petitioners. 13....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso came to the same conclusion. The Tribunal therefore, accepted the stand of the petitioners that the product was not Bearing Races but Alloy Steel Forging (Machined). This finding of the Tribunal was independent and based on its acceptance of the various certificates and conclusions of the inquiries produced by the petitioners. In the present case, the product has remained the same. The description of the rival entries in the Schedule to the DEPB Scheme has remained the same. Logically, therefore, classification of the goods must also remain the same. 17. The second aspect which the Tribunal examined and on which the Commissioner has placed much reliance was the classification of the product presented by the petitioners for DEPB Scheme and the circular of CBEC providing corresponding entries for the purpose of Duty Drawback Scheme. The Tribunal was of the opinion that when for the purpose of DEPB Scheme, the product is accepted as one of Alloy Steel Forging (Machined), as per the circular of CBEC, for the purpose of Duty Drawback Scheme also it will carry the same classification. The Tribunal observed that there is no proposal to reopen this classification. 18. Had this be....