2011 (6) TMI 319 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Classification - ARH-C-Oil - Respondents have sought the classification of the same under tariff heading 2709.0000 the Revenue has claimed the classification under heading 27101990 - Hence the identical dispute of the same appellant was the subject matter of the Tribunal order No. A/2304/WZB/AHD/2008 dated 01.01.2008 and the matter was remanded to Commissioner for de-novo decision based upon the reports of chemical examiner in respect of the samples drawn by the officers of DGCEI - . Accordingly we set-aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh decision.

Summary

Issues:
1. Correct classification of the disputed product ARH-C-Oil under tariff headings.
2. Appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Remand of the matter for fresh decision by the original adjudicating authority based on de-novo proceedings.

Issue 1: Correct Classification of ARH-C-Oil
The dispute in the case revolves around the correct classification of the product ARH-C-Oil. The respondents sought classification under tariff heading 2709.0000, while the Revenue claimed classification under heading 27101990. The original adjudicating authority confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 31,65,484 against the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the Chemical Examiner report, samples drawn by DGCEI, and papers obtained under the RTI Act. The Commissioner ruled in favor of the assessee, leading to the present appeal by the Revenue.

Issue 2: Appeal Against Commissioner (Appeals) Order
The Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which set aside the original adjudicating authority's decision. The Appellate Tribunal noted that a similar dispute involving the same appellant was previously remanded to the Commissioner for a de-novo decision based on the reports of the chemical examiner regarding samples drawn by DGCEI officers. As the earlier adjudication was still pending, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter for a fresh decision by the original adjudicating authority based on the outcome of the de-novo proceedings.

Issue 3: Remand for Fresh Decision
Given the pending de-novo proceedings and the similarity with the earlier remanded matter, the Tribunal directed the original adjudicating authority to decide the case afresh based on the results of the de-novo proceedings by the Commissioner. The Tribunal suggested that the proceedings could be combined with the previous remanded matter for a common decision. Additionally, the Tribunal dismissed one of the appeals as infructuous, retaining the first-filed appeal for further proceedings.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad highlights the key issues of correct classification, appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, and the remand for a fresh decision by the original adjudicating authority. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter based on pending de-novo proceedings and the dismissal of one appeal as infructuous are significant aspects of the judgment delivered by the Tribunal.