w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad v/s Prachi Forgings Pvt. Ltd.

    APPEAL No. E/3213 of 2003

    Decided On, 23 March 2010

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. P.G. CHACKO
    By, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)& THE HONOURABLE MR. S.K. GAULE
    By, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

    Shri Manish Mohan, Authorised Representative (SDR), for Appellant.



Judgment Text

Per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J),


This appeal is filed by the Revenue, represented today by the learned SDR. There is no representation for the respondent despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. The short question arising for consideration in this case is whether the benefit of Notification No.223/88-CE dated 23.6.1988 (as amended) (serial No.4) is admissible to the respondent in respect of the subject goods for the period September 1993 to February 1994.


2. The relevant show-cause notice denied the benefit of concessional rate of duty under serial No.4 of the Table annexed to the notification, which was available to forgings and forged articles of steel (other than stainless steel), to the respondent on the ground that the goods manufactured by them and cleared during the above period were forgings and forged articles of alloy steel. The show-cause notice accordingly demanded duty of Rs.1,86,629/- from the party. The original authority dropped the demand of duty and other proposals in the show-cause notice after finding that investigation had not adduced any evidence to show that the assessee had manufactured and cleared forgings and forged articles of other alloy steel in the guise of other articles of iron and steel. It also found no evidence on record to show that the assessee had misdeclared the forgings and forged articles. The findings of the original authority were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). After considering the evidentiary materials available on record, the appellate authority found no merit in the department's appeal. It held that there was no evidence on record to show that the respondent had actually manufactured and cleared forgings and forged articles of "other alloy steel" in the guise of "other articles of iron and steel" unmachined forgings. It was also held that there was no evidence to show that the respondent had misdeclared the forgings and forged products of other alloy steel as forgings and forged products of iron and steel. It was found that they had declared their products in the classification list effective from 1.4.1993 which was duly approved on 3.9.1993 and, therefore, there was no suppression of any fact on their part. The present appeal of the Revenue is directed against the appellate Commissioner's order.


3. In this appeal, the only ground raised by the appellant is that, in a case of another party, namely M/s. Devgiri Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad, the appellate authority had denied the benefit of the notification (serial No.4) to the said assessee on the ground that the benefit was not automatically available to forgings and forged articles of other alloy steels. We are afraid, how can the department deny the benefit to the respondent for the reason stated in the present appeal. It is also significant to note that the appellant has not endeavoured to bring out the ratio of the decision contained in the order-in-appeal in respect of M/s. Devgiri Forgings Pvt. Ltd. The appellant has not even produced a copy of the said order-in-appeal. There is no mention as to whether the said order-i

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

n-appeal attained finality. Apart from this aspect, we have not found any fresh evidentiary material in support of the appellant's plea for denial of the benefit of the notification to the respondent. There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower authorities. 4. In the result, this appeal gets dismissed.
O R