2005 (1) TMI 253 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the demand can be raised for past six months in respect of excisable goods cleared based on an approved classification list.

Analysis:
The appeal filed by Revenue raised the issue of whether a demand can be raised for past six months in relation to excisable goods cleared based on a classification list approved by the competent officer. The case involved 'Fly Back Transformers' classified under Heading 85.29 by the manufacturer, which was later challenged by the Revenue. The Assistant Commissioner reclassified the goods under Heading 85.04 and demanded differential duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand, but the Tribunal upheld the decision based on a Supreme Court ruling. However, a subsequent Supreme Court judgment in another case remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for further consideration.

The Senior Departmental Representative argued that a demand for duty can be confirmed for the past period even if the classification list has been approved by the Proper Officer, citing a Supreme Court decision. On the other hand, the Respondents did not contest the reclassification but relied on precedents to argue that no duty could be demanded for the period before the issuance of the Board's Circular classifying the goods under Heading 85.04.

The Tribunal considered both arguments and referred to Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000, which allows duty demand for past periods regardless of the classification list approval. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from previous decisions, emphasizing that the Circular in question was not issued under Section 37B for uniform classification but to clarify the appropriate Heading. Therefore, the duty demand for the period specified in the show cause notice was deemed valid within the six-month limit under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, leading to the Appeal being allowed.