TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 371
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Authority of India Ltd. ('SAIL'), Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondent') is engaged in the manufacture of iron & steel products having an integrated plant. The process of manufacture undertaken in the coke oven and coal chemical division results in generation of various bye products such as hard pitch, extra hard pitch, soft pitch, total pitch and pitch creosote mixture ('PCM') which were cleared by the Respondent, during the impugned period, by classifying them under Chapter Heading 2706 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 ('CETA') upon payment of applicable duty. 2.1. A SCN was issued to the Respondent demanding Central excise duty to the tune of Rs. 11,26,28,275/- , on the ground that hard p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Respondent's own case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the same is classifiable under Heading 2708.11 of the CETA, hence the classification adopted by Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise is correct. Further, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration as to whether the Respondent is eligible for benefit of Notification No. 28/89-C.E. dated 01.03.1989 as claimed by the Respondent * Extended period of limitation invoked in the SCN as well as the demand of penalty were set aside. * The demand on PCM if any was ordered to be re-quantified considering normal period of limitation 2.4. As directed by CESTAT, Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranchi, passed Order-in-Original (O-I-O) No. 24/MP/Denovo/Commr./2013, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainst the settled principles of law. Since CESTAT, Kolkata vide its order dated 31.03.2011 had already set aside the demand of excise duty on hard pitch, extra hard pitch, soft pitch and total pitch holding that the department had proposed incorrect classification in the present proceedings. The adjudicating authority, while deciding other issues remanded relating to PCM, was not required to verify as to how much duty of excise had been paid by the Respondent on the clearances of the said goods. The decision pronounced by CESTAT, Kolkata vide its order dated 31.03.2011 was based on the principle that the demand raised in the show cause notice under a particular classification cannot subsequently be confirmed under a different classification....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ariff subheading 2708.11. As per the Appellant, even though the said products were proposed to be classified under tariff sub-heading 2708.19 by the SCN, however, post the Tribunal's order, the adjudicating authority should have verified the payment of duty under the tariff heading 2708.11 by the Respondent. 6.1. In this regard, we observe that CESTAT, Kolkata vide its order dated 31.03.2011 had already set aside the demand of excise duty on hard pitch, extra hard pitch, soft pitch and total pitch holding that the department had proposed incorrect classification in the present proceedings. The adjudicating authority, while deciding other issues remanded relating to PCM, was not required to verify as to how much duty of excise had been paid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ck to its stand that the tablets were Ayurvedic medicines classifiable under Heading 3003.30. The Tribunal noted that the Assistant Collector had classified the tablets under Heading 3003.19, that is, as patent or proprietary medicines. This was clear indication that the stand of the Excise authorities prior to the stage of the appeal to the Tribunal was that the tablets were patent or proprietary medicines classifiable under Heading 3003.19. The Tribunal also noted that "both sides have not adduced any detailed arguments as to why these tablets can be considered as confectionery item or otherwise although a plea is there from the Collector in the grounds of appeal that the goods are assessable under Tariff 17.04". In our opinion, the Tribu....