METAL FORGINGS Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2002-11-94
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
November 22,2002
METAL FORGINGS
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
GOKAK PATEL VOLKART LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE BELGAUM [REFERRED TO]TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SAMRAT INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE HYDERABAD [REFERRED TO]
COASTAL GASES AND CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE VISAKHAPATNAM [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore VS. Merchant Impex [LAWS(KAR)-2011-9-244] [REFERRED TO]NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST VS. GAC SHIPPING PVT LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2012-8-201] [REFERRED TO]
J K SYNTHETICS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2008-7-66] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GAUHATI [LAWS(SC)-2015-5-37] [REFERRED TO]
ARTI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-82] [REFERRED TO]
MODIPON LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2004-2-240] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYANAND ROADLINES LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BELGAUM [LAWS(CE)-2005-8-89] [FOLLOWED]
HARYANA SHEET GLASS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2008-7-137] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. PRE-STRESSED UDYOG (INDIA) (P.) LTD. [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-7-139] [REFERRED TO]
ALKA UMESH ZADGAONKAR VS. NAGPUR UNIVERSITY [LAWS(BOM)-2007-3-91] [REFERRED TO]
BENGAL LAMPS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE [LAWS(CE)-2004-11-120] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION [LAWS(MAD)-2017-4-242] [REFERRED TO]
SRF LTD. VS. CCE [LAWS(CE)-2009-12-58] [REFERRED TO]
KAUSHALYA CHAUBEY VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-621] [REFERRED TO]
MESSRS AZTEC FLUIDS AND MACHINERY PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2022-4-1630] [REFERRED TO]
INTRON LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2004-11-242] [REFERRED TO]
KEDIA OVERSEAS LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(APH)-2005-10-86] [REFERRED TO]
GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO LTD VS. NEW MANGALORE POINT TRUST [LAWS(KAR)-2008-2-71] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN REFRIGERATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(SC)-2006-9-137] [REFERRED TO]
VBC INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VISAKHAPATNAM [LAWS(CE)-2005-8-102] [REFERRED TO]
PARO FOOD PRODUCTS VS. COMMR. OF CUS. & C. EX. (APPEALS-II), HYDERABAD [LAWS(CE)-2006-7-56] [REFERRED TO]
TIMKEN INDIA LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KOLKATA [LAWS(CE)-2007-5-157] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPN. LTD. VS. COMMR. OF C. EX., VISAKHAPATNAM [LAWS(CE)-2009-8-88] [REFERRED TO]
PARO FOODS PRODUCTS VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD [LAWS(CE)-2003-7-204] [RELIED ON]
SHAPOORJI PALLONJI INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL COMPANY PVT LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-769] [REFERRED TO]
SWASTIKA CONCAB (I) PVT. LTD. VS. CCE [LAWS(CE)-2009-3-185] [REFERRED TO]
CHETAK TECHNOLOGY LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS TRIVEDI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2013-4-174] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. [LAWS(CE)-2003-8-194] [REFERRED TO]
VISHNU POUCH PACKING PVT. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2015-9-125] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. VS. COMMR. OF C. EX., HALDIA [LAWS(CE)-2008-2-164] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM VS. MUKUND LTD. [LAWS(CE)-2008-9-172] [REFERRED TO]
N.K.H. ALLOYS VS. CCE [LAWS(CE)-2009-1-243] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CALCUTTA VS. HINDUSTAN NATIONAL GLASS AND IND LTD [LAWS(SC)-2005-3-57] [REFERRED TO]
SADHAVNA HP GAS, PATNA VS. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD , PATNA AND OTHERS [LAWS(PAT)-2017-7-143] [REFERRED TO]
YASH RAJ VS. BIHAR STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(PAT)-2022-8-57] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA CYLINDERS PVT. LTD. VS. CESTAT [LAWS(BOM)-2010-8-258] [REFERRED TO]
BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(SC)-2019-12-26] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF C EX , NAGPUR VS. ORIENTAL EXPLOSIVES (P) LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2007-8-302] [REFERRED]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. M/S. EL.P.EM INDUSTRIES [LAWS(MAD)-2017-8-127] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR GUPTA VS. COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
PRADYUMNA PATTNAIK VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2022-11-110] [REFERRED TO]
RECKITT & COLMAN OF INDIA LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE [LAWS(CE)-2005-4-105] [REFERRED TO]
SERCO GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-III [LAWS(CE)-2015-3-83] [REFERRED TO]
NKAS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-2-12] [REFERRED TO]
AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER [LAWS(APH)-2014-6-22] [REFERRED TO]
USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA-V AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2009-7-102] [REFERRED TO]
MAURIA UDYOG LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI [LAWS(P&H)-2006-8-208] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. CHARAK PHARMACEUTICALS (INDIA) LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2003-3-114] [REFERRED TO]
JAM RANJITSINGHJI SPG & WVG MILLS CO LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-8-271] [REFERRED]
DIVI?S LABORATORIES LTD. VS. COMMR. OF CUS. & C. EX. (A-III), HYDERABAD [LAWS(CE)-2009-1-128] [REFERRED TO]
CC VS. R.K. INTERNATIONAL [LAWS(CE)-2009-2-167] [REFERRED TO]
JETLITE (INDIA) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C.EX. [LAWS(CE)-2010-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR SPONGE IRON LTD. VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
SUPER RUBBER WORKS VS. ASSISTANT COMMR. OF C. EX. [LAWS(MAD)-2012-10-303] [REFERRED TO]
PEGASUS TRAVELS AND TOURS PVT. LTD. VS. JOINT COMMR. OF C. EX. [LAWS(MAD)-2013-4-336] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Santosh Hegde, J. -
(1.)The appellants herein are the manufacturers of forged steel products which was assessable to central excise duty under Tariff Item 26-AA(ia). On the introduction of Tariff Item 68 in the first Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Act) w.e.f. 1-3-1985, a question arose whether the said product manufactured by the appellants by forging became liable for further duty under Tariff Item 68 because after the forging, the appellants are said to have subjected this product to certain other manufacturing processes like polishing and trimming to make the product suitable for its ultimate use. This dispute between the appellant and the Revenue had a chequered career going through the process of appeals, revision, writ petition before the Delhi High Court, then a remand, another round of appeal before the authorities and then ultimately another appeal to the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (the tribunal) which was by then constituted, and from there to this Court by way of this statutory appeal. Thus, this litigation which started by virtue of an order made by the Assistant Collector on 21-1-1976 is now before us in the year 2002.
(2.)Before the tribunal, two questions arose for consideration. They are : whether the products manufactured by the appellants are classifiable under Tariff Item 68 If so, the demand made by the revenue for collection of duty under that head was within the period of limitation. A Bench of the tribunal which heard the appeal, could not come to a unanimous decision on these questions. The Judicial member came to the conclusion that the Department was right in classifying the goods under Tariff Item 68 while the Technical Member was of the opinion that the matter should be remanded to the lower appellate authority for deciding the classification of the products after taking into account the entire material brought on record by the appellants before the appellate authority and not by merely relying on the judgment of Delhi High Court.
(3.)In regard to the question of limitation, the Judicial Member held that even though the order of the Assistant Collector dated 22-1-1976 was not provisional but final, even then certain letters and orders issued or made during the course of the proceedings could be treated as required show cause notice, hence, the Department could determine the amount of duty payable by the party at last from 25-1-1985 till the end of 1985 hence partly allowed the claim of the revenue, while the Technical Member came to the conclusion that the clearances made by the appellants for the relevant period should be treated as provisional clearance which does not require issuance of show cause notice and also because of the interim order made by the High Court of Delhi on 19-2-1981, the Department was restrained from issuing the required show cause notice, therefore, the bar of limitation cannot be put against the revenue. On that basis the contention of the appellants of lack of show cause notice and bar of limitation came to be rejected. Thus, upholding the demand made by the revenue in its entirety.
(2.)Before the tribunal, two questions arose for consideration. They are : whether the products manufactured by the appellants are classifiable under Tariff Item 68 If so, the demand made by the revenue for collection of duty under that head was within the period of limitation. A Bench of the tribunal which heard the appeal, could not come to a unanimous decision on these questions. The Judicial member came to the conclusion that the Department was right in classifying the goods under Tariff Item 68 while the Technical Member was of the opinion that the matter should be remanded to the lower appellate authority for deciding the classification of the products after taking into account the entire material brought on record by the appellants before the appellate authority and not by merely relying on the judgment of Delhi High Court.
(3.)In regard to the question of limitation, the Judicial Member held that even though the order of the Assistant Collector dated 22-1-1976 was not provisional but final, even then certain letters and orders issued or made during the course of the proceedings could be treated as required show cause notice, hence, the Department could determine the amount of duty payable by the party at last from 25-1-1985 till the end of 1985 hence partly allowed the claim of the revenue, while the Technical Member came to the conclusion that the clearances made by the appellants for the relevant period should be treated as provisional clearance which does not require issuance of show cause notice and also because of the interim order made by the High Court of Delhi on 19-2-1981, the Department was restrained from issuing the required show cause notice, therefore, the bar of limitation cannot be put against the revenue. On that basis the contention of the appellants of lack of show cause notice and bar of limitation came to be rejected. Thus, upholding the demand made by the revenue in its entirety.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.