- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In this appeal, the appellant had challenged the Judgement and order passed by the Special Bench of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. E/Misc./1541/90-B1 and E/A. No. 1423/91-B1 dated 30-11-1993. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that after the impugned judgment, a larger Bench of the Tribunal by judgment dated 15-5-2000 in Press Metal Corpn. Ltd. V/s. CCE has specifically held that the goods manufactured by the appellant are panels which are to be used in the manufacture of bodies of light motor vehicles. These panels are manufactured out of steel sheets and strips. These steel sheets and strips are fed into cold-forming mill and converted into corrugated sheets. These corrugated sheets are cut into sizes according to specifications given by the customers who manufacture bodies of light commercial vehicles. The Tribunal specifically arrived at the conclusion that goods manufactured would be covered by Heading 7216.20 which relates to angles, shapes and sections of iron or non-alloy steel. Heading 7216.20 takes within its ambit no further work than cold-rolled-formed or cold-finished. The products of angles, shapes and sections are used in the manufacture of agricultural implements, machinery, automobiles, fences, furniture, sliding doors or curtain tracks, umbrella ribs and numerous other articles. The lighter variety of angles, shapes and sections is used in the manufacture of automobiles. By such user, these angles, shapes and sections cannot be treated as parts of automobile or motor vehicles unless further processes, as required, are carried out. It was also held that unless those works like strengthening, welding, fixing hinges, hooks etc. are carried out, it will not acquire the character as a part of motor vehicle.
(2.) It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the aforesaid Judgement rendered by the Special Bench of the Tribunal is accepted by the Department. He further submits that the appellant has also never disputed this aspect and had all throughout paid the duty under Chapter 72 for the sheets and sections. For the parts of the equipments manufactured by it, the appellant was paying duty either under Sub-Heading 84.21 or 87.08. It is submitted that the Commissioner has committed an apparent error in not considering the documents which were in his possession. He repeatedly submitted that after passing of the order by the Commissioner, the appellant raised this contention before the Tribunal, but without looking at the original documents which were in the custody of the Department, the Tribunal has passed the order on 30-11-1993. Hence, the appellant filed rectification application raising all these contentions. However, the Tribunal summarily rejected the same. Hence this appeal.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Department submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, this Court should not interfere with the impugned order.;