TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1507
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the goods manufactured by them are classifiable under Chapters 84198990, 84193100 and 84199090 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the scrap generated under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and though their aggregate value of turnover had exceeded Rs.4.00 Crores during the Financial Year 2013-14 without payment of Central Excise duty. Central excise duty of Rs.1,79,53,956/- (Appeal No. E/20600/2015) and Rs.75,03,990/- (Appeal No. E/21362/2015) were demanded along with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the learned Commissioner confirmed the classification of the products proposed in the show-cause notice and also confirmed recovery of the differential duty along with interest and imposed penalty. Hence, the present appeals. 3.1 At the outset, the learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the CBEC Circular No.982/06/2014-CX dated 15.05.2014 which effectively rescinded the earlier Circular No.924/14/2010-CX dated 19.05.2010 cannot have retrospective effect and can only be applied prospectively, thereof. He has submitted that even though the appellants had specifically argued before the adjudicating authority placing reliance on various d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has submitted that the learned adjudicating authority has erred in imposing penalty on the appellant even though the issue relates to classification and two conflicting Circulars have been issued by the Board on the same issue. 4. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the Revenue has reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner. He has submitted that the issue of classification of parboiling machinery and drier plant and parts thereof under CETA 8427 is no more res integra since decided by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jyoti Sales Corporation [2016(341) ELT 328 (Tri. LB)], which has been later adopted by the Division Bench. Further, he has submitted that the decision in the case of Ricetech Machinery(supra) is not a binding precedent as the ratio of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Jyoti Sales Corporation(supra) has not been placed before the Division Bench while passing the said order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. As the issue of classification of parboiling machinery and drier plant and parts thereof is no more res integra and decided by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in Jyoti Sales Corporation case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... covers machinery or plant, whether or not electrically heated, for the treatment of materials by a process involving a change of temperature such as heating, cooking, roasting, distilling, rectifying, sterilising, raster pasteurising, steaming, drying, etc. We do find that the functions performed by the par boiling machine and dryer are squarely covered in this Heading 8419. 13. It has been argued before us that 8419 excludes grain dampening machines whose classification is indicated as 8437. It has further been argued that the process undertaken in the making of par boiled rice is akin to grain dampening machines. We are not persuaded by this argument. The process carried out in the par boiling machine is far more than grain dampening. It involves not only soaking but also steaming and drying. Clearly, such a machine cannot be described as grain dampening machine. 14. When we look at the two clarifications issued by the Board dated 19-5-2010 and the subsequent clarification dated 15-5-2014, we find that initially the Board had suggested classification of the par boiling machine under 8437 considering it as a part of rice milling machinery. However, subsequent to the decision ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as restricted the demand for the period from 15.05.2014 observing that the Circular No.924/14/2010-C dated 19.05.2010 issued earlier classifying the product under Chapter 8437 was rescinded only w.e.f. 15.05.2014. The Tribunal observed as follows:- "13. In view of above analysis, we hold that for the period prior to 15-5-2014 if the appellants have classified their products in question under Chapter Heading No. 8437 of CETA, no demand is sustainable in terms of the Circular No. 924/14/2010-CX., dated 19-5-2010." 8. The judgment in Jyothi Sales Corporation was later followed by the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Rippen Radiators and Heat Exchangers (supra) observing as follows:- "5. ..................... ........................... From the above decision it can be seen that even though the Larger Bench has decided the merits of classification under heading 8419 but despite that the issue that when the Board Circular was in force which classified the goods under heading 8437 shall prevail as per various Supreme Court decisions discussed by the Larger Bench in the aforesaid decision. 6. As regards the Revenue's contention that at the time of issuance of show cause notic....