9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1994 (4) TMI 185 - AT - Central Excise
Issues: Stay application based on classification list approval; Retrospective duty demand; Applicability of Notification No. 14/92; Financial hardship plea.
In this case, a stay application was filed concerning an order issued by the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi. The appellant initially classified their product as "Made up textile articles NES woven sacks of polymers of ethylene or propylene" under 63.01, which was approved by the Assistant Collector. However, a subsequent order by the Central Board of Excise and Customs under Section 37B led to a revised classification under 3923.90, prompting a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice for differential duty from 24-9-1992. The appellant argued that such demands should be prospective, citing a Supreme Court judgment for support, and claimed exemption under Notification No. 14/92 for the goods under Heading 3923. The appellant contended that any duty due should be demanded only from the effective date of the revised classification list and not retrospectively. They also argued for exemption under Notification No. 14/92, claiming that the goods were covered under a specific entry providing a partial exemption. The appellant further stated that if two entries of a notification are applicable, the assessee can choose the entry that benefits them, supported by a precedent. However, the appellant had not raised any financial hardship plea. The Tribunal acknowledged the Section 37B order's relevance for demands post its issuance but noted the availability of the Notification No. 14/92 benefit, unaddressed by the Collector (Appeals). Considering the arguable nature of the matter and the applicability of the notification entries, the Tribunal found it appropriate to grant the stay application, waiving the pre-deposit of the disputed amount during the appeal's pendency. Subsequently, the authorities were directed to release the detained goods worth one lakh rupees, which had been held despite the pending stay application before the Tribunal.
|
