TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (12) TMI 133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xemption Notification No. 275/88-C.E., dated 4-11-1988 while the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities were of the view that the goods as cleared were classifiable under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff, and that the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 275/88-C.E., dated 4-11-1988 (as amended) was not available to the goods classifiable under Chapter 84 of the Tariff. A duty of Rs. 1,64,917.65 was demanded for the period 8-3-1989 to 28-2-1990 under show cause notice dated 10-5-1993. Penal provisions were invoked. For justifying the demand beyond the normal period of limitation, it was alleged that the assessee had wilfully suppressed the facts from the knowledge of the Department that the goods manufactured by them under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty was, however, imposed. 2.The matter was heard on 17-10-2000 when Shri S. Paul, advocate, appearing for the appellants, submitted that proof machining will not convert the castings into machine parts and that the castings continued to remain castings up to the stage of proof machining. It was his plea that the benefit of exemption Notification No. 275/88-C.E. could not be denied on the ground that the castings had been subjected to the process of proof machining. He found fault with the reasoning of the adjudicating authority that the proof machining amounted to the process of machining. He relied upon the Trade Notice No. 19/87 dated 9-3-1987 of the Central Excise Collectorate, Bombay-I, and Trade Notice No. 18/Bombay-III/General (17....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d castings were eligible for the benefit of aforesaid Notification No. 275/88-C.E., no such benefit accrued to the castings so proof machined. He had not discussed and had not held that the goods as so proof machined were machinery parts of iron to be classified under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff. 4.Under Notification No. 275/88-C.E., dated 4-11-1988 (as amended) unmachined iron castings and unmachined cast articles of iron were eligible for exemption from the payment of central excise duty subject to the following conditions - They were made from the duty paid specified materials as(i) described in the annexure to that notification; and No credit of the duty paid on the above duty paid specified(ii) materials had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... adjudicating authority had taken a correct view holding that fettling was not the process that amounted to the process of machining for the purpose of Notification No. 275/88-C.E. 7.With regard to proof machining, it could not be said that it was not a process of machining for the purpose of Notification No. 275/88-C.E. While proof machining alone will not make the casting an identifiable specific machine part, to be classified as machine part, as such as distinct from the casting, the goods could not be considered as unmachined casting after proof machining. Proof machining is done to see that the walls of the casting are not hollow from inside. It also removes surface defects of the casting and makes the casting a smooth and clean one ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the question of limitation. In the show cause notice dated 10-5-1993, the central excise duty has been demanded for the period 8-3-1989 to 28-2-1990 invoking the extended period of limitation. While the charge of wilful suppression of the facts had been levelled, the only ground referred to was that the goods manufactured under the name of castings were nothing but the parts of various machines covered under Chapter 84. In their reply dated 19-7-1993, the appellants had replied to the charge of suppression as under - 5.It is also to say and submit that there is no suppression of any facts by virtue of which the cast articles of 78 will shift to Chapter 84. A matter of fact no "Such facts" existed hence the question of suppression does not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny and various details were called for by the authorities and only thereafter the classification lists were approved. The approval accorded by the authorities was, thus, after full application of mind and scrutiny of the product. In the circumstances, there can be no justification, whatsoever, for invoking proviso to Section 11A of the Act as has been done in the present case. The show cause notice was issued on 10-5-1993 demanding duty for the period 8-3-1989 to 28-2-1990. Since the classification lists were repeatedly approved by the authorities and there was no question of any suppression of facts or mis-statement on the part of the appellant, there can be no justification, whatsoever for raising and confirming the demand for a period ex....