2000 (2) TMI 452 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether duty of excise can be demanded for the past six months when the classification list has been approved.

Analysis:
The appeal filed by M/s Intron Ltd. raised the issue of whether excise duty can be demanded for the past six months after the approval of the classification list. The Appellants manufactured electronically controlled and programmable washing machines and filed a classification list effective from 1-3-93. The Assistant Collector approved the classification list on 23-7-93, and the R.T. 12 returns were duly assessed. The Department issued a show-cause notice seeking to deny the benefit of a notification and demanded differential excise duty for the period from 1-3-93 to 30-4-93. The Appellant argued that no differential duty can be demanded once the classification list is approved, citing the decision in the case of C.C.E. Baroda v. M/s Cotspun Ltd.

The Respondent contended that clearances made before the approval of the classification list are deemed provisional, as held in previous cases. They argued that since the show-cause notice was issued within six months of finalizing the provisional assessment, the decision in Cotspun Ltd. case does not apply. The Appellant, in response, referred to the decision in the case of Universal Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE Calcutta, emphasizing the conditions for resorting to provisional assessment and highlighting that assessments made pending approval of the classification list should not be treated as provisional for the purpose of demand unless specific requirements are met.

The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and rejected the argument that assessments before the approval of the classification list were provisional under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules. Referring to a recent judgment by the Apex Court, the Tribunal emphasized the need for the assessee to provide material indicating provisional assessments. Since no such material was presented, and the classification list was approved with duly assessed returns, the Tribunal held that no demand for differential duty could be made. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in the Cotspun Ltd. case, stating that the levy of excise duty based on an approved classification list is not a short levy. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.