RUBICON STEELS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE nine petitions viz. C. W. P. Nos. 1552,1899,1900,1901 and 2922 of 1988,7116,7118,7128, and 12162 of 1989 are directed against a circular of June 4/5,1987 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (for short 'the Board') as also the notice calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the central excise duty and penalty be not recovered from them. On behalf of the respondents, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the petitioners have been given a show cause notice. It is intended to afford an opportunity to them. Instead of availing of the opportunity and exhausting the departmental channels, the petitioners have approached the Court. It has been contended that the writ petitions are misconceived.

(2.) FOR appreciating the factual and legal position, the averments made in C. W. P No. 1552 of 1988 alone may be considered. The Petitioner claims to be engaged in manufacturing steel forgings. It is averred that the raw material is cut to the required length and thereafter the pieces are heated to a temperature of 1250c approximately. Thereafter, the heated pieces of steel are forged in close die forging hammer or presses. The excessive flesh on the above-said forgings is trimmed. Finally the forgings are shot blasted to remove the scales and costed to prevent them from rusting. It is claimed that the forgings/goods when removed from petitioner's factory are products of rough appearance and cannot be described as finished articles.

(3.) THESE factual premises are disputed by the respondents. It is maintained on their behalf that the steel balls and pin cottered manufactured by the petitioner have essential characteristics of finished articles and are used as such by the Thermal Plants/ Railways. It has been further averred that the petitioner mis-declared the products manufactured by it as 'roughly shaped products' in the classification list and thus got the same misclassified by misstatement with the intention to evade the central excise duty. In paragraph 10 it has been particularly averred that actually the goods manufactured by the petitioner were/are not roughly shaped products but are finished products and are classifiable under the Heading 73. 08 instead of the Heading 72. 08 of the Central Excise Tariff as it existed prior to 1-3-1988.