COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. Vs. NAV BHARAT ENGG.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order -in -appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order -in -original of the adjudicating authority and set aside the duty and penalty against the respondents.

(2.) THE learned SDR has contended that the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is illegal as the respondents had cleared the dutiable goods without payment of duty after having crossed the exemption limit. On the other hand, the learned Counsel has contended that the adjudicating authority had travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice and for that reason, the order -in -original of that authority had been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals).

(3.) I have heard both sides. The bare perusal of the record shows that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of sawing machines and parts thereof, besides other goods. Their goods, as alleged in the show cause notice, were classifiable under Heading 8479 and accordingly the duty demand was raised from them for having crossed the exemption limit. But the adjudicating authority recorded the findings that the sawing machines manufactured by the respondents, were not covered under Heading 8479, but under 8445. The adjudicating authority accordingly confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalty on the appellants, as detailed in the order -in -original. The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the above said order -in -original on the ground that the duty demand, having been raised by alleging that the goods were classifiable under Heading No. 84.79 of the CETA, could not be confirmed, under another Heading No. 8445, and that the adjudicating authority had travelled beyond the allegations raised in the show cause notice, and as such the order -in -original was illegal.