1991 (1) TMI 262 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of grids, connectors, straps, and terminals.
2. Determination of whether the items are cast articles or wrought lead.
3. Applicability of Tariff Item (T.I.) 68 versus T.I. 27A(5).
4. Validity of the demand notice and the issue of limitation.
5. Jurisdiction of the proper officer to issue the show cause notice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Grids, Connectors, Straps, and Terminals:
The primary issue in these appeals is the classification of grids, connectors, straps, and terminals manufactured by the appellants for use in electric storage batteries. The appellant contends that these items fall under T.I. 68, while the Department has classified them under T.I. 27A(5) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.

2. Determination of Whether the Items are Cast Articles or Wrought Lead:
The appellant argues that the items are cast articles and not of wrought lead. They assert that the items are not machined beyond casting, except for the grids which are guillotined, passed through wooden rollers, and trimmed. The Department, however, contends that the process of strengthening in the conveyor amounts to further working, rendering the items as wrought lead.

3. Applicability of Tariff Item (T.I.) 68 versus T.I. 27A(5):
The appellant maintains that the items should be classified under T.I. 68, which is a residuary entry, whereas the Department argues for classification under T.I. 27A(5), which covers wrought lead in the form of shapes, sections, angles, etc. The Tribunal examined the definitions and explanatory notes from various sources, including the Brussels Trade Nomenclature and technical dictionaries, to determine the meaning of "wrought" and the specific forms of metals.

4. Validity of the Demand Notice and the Issue of Limitation:
The appellant contends that the demand is time-barred in the absence of suppression, as they have regularly filed classification lists under T.I. 68 since 1975. The Department issued a show cause notice on 29-4-1986 demanding duty for the period from 1-8-1984 to 31-1-1986. The Tribunal found that the demand is barred by limitation as the allegation of suppression was not established by the Department.

5. Jurisdiction of the Proper Officer to Issue the Show Cause Notice:
The appellant argues that the show cause notice suffers from lack of jurisdiction as it was issued by the Assistant Collector, who ceased to be the proper officer for invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Sec. 11A subsequent to 27-11-1985. The Tribunal agreed with this contention, noting that the Assistant Collector was not competent to issue the notice invoking the extended period of limitation after the amendment of Section 11A on 27-11-1985.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order in E/A/2989/87B1, allowing the appeal of the appellant. They upheld the order of the Collector in E/A/3357/87B1 and E/A/2424/87B1, dismissing these two appeals. The Tribunal concluded that the items in question do not fall within the definition of wrought lead under T.I. 27A(5) and are correctly classifiable under T.I. 68. Additionally, the demand for duty was found to be time-barred and issued without proper jurisdiction.

← Previous Next →