- (1.) The petition has been carried to this extraordinary jurisdiction to avoid the payment of the statutory pre -deposit necessary for maintaining an appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
(2.) The challenge to the order impugned dated February 19, 2016 is fashioned on the ground of it being without jurisdiction, though, in effect, it is only a perceived error of judgment which is questioned. According to the petitioners, they had manufactured quartz or quartzite which would be exigible under tariff heading 2506 as being distinct from refractory material under tariff heading 3816. The petitioners say that a Central Board of Excise and Customs letter of November 9, 2015 to the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (Ranchi Zone), renders an opinion which is binding on all excise authorities that unless any binder is added to the quartz or quartzite, however such mineral may have been trimmed or cut, the resultant material has to be regarded as answering to the description under tariff heading 2506. The relevant letter clarifies that upon any binder being added to the cut and trimmed mineral, the resultant product would be refractory material under tariff heading 3816.
(3.) That such view has been clearly taken in the Board's letter of November 9, 2015 is beyond question. Such position is also repeated in a letter addressed to the Adityapur Small Industries Association by the Board on November 19, 2015. The relevant letters appear to have been before the concerned Commissioner who passed the order impugned on February 19, 2016.;