1996 (11) TMI 217 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order-in-Appeal dated 11-2-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta regarding duty demand on two-way keys. Classification of two-way keys under Item No. 25 of the erstwhile CET. Trade Notice dated 25-10-1984 and its retrospective or prospective effect.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the order-in-Appeal dated 11-2-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, specifically concerning the duty demand on two-way keys. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had upheld the demand of Rs. 379871 relating to two-way keys cleared between 1-7-1984 to 24-10-1984, citing time bar for any demand prior to the Trade Notice dated 25-10-1984. The Revenue contended that the date of the Trade Notice does not determine the limitation period under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The respondents, M/s. Ambica Metal Works, supported the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and opposed the Revenue's appeal in their cross objections.

During the proceedings, the Revenue argued that the Trade Notice was merely for informational purposes and not limited to prospective application, thus justifying the demand raised within the specified time frame. On the other hand, the respondents' consultant maintained that the classification of two-way keys under Item No. 25 of the Tariff had already been decided by the Tribunal and there was no basis to interfere with the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals)'s order.

The Tribunal, after due consideration, found that the classification of two-way keys under Item No. 25(8) of the Tariff had been previously established in a separate case. The Department had classified the products under Item No. 68, which was not challenged by the respondents. Additionally, previous Tribunal decisions confirmed that two-way keys and cotters were classified under different tariff items than claimed by the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing lack of merit.

Regarding the retrospective or prospective effect of the Trade Notice, the Tribunal clarified that Trade Notices generally have retrospective application, subject to the law of limitation. However, in this case, the Tribunal's decision was based on the classification of two-way keys under Item No. 25, irrespective of the Trade Notice's effect. The issue of cotters' classification was not raised by either party, and considering the age of the matter and the minimal duty involved, the Tribunal deemed it unnecessary to remand the case.

After thorough consideration of all relevant factors, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal and disposed of the cross objections accordingly, concluding that it was not a suitable case for remand.