9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (7) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the classification of Speedometer Cables and Tachometer Cables under Tariff Heading 9033.00 by the Assistant Collector, pleading that the correct classification should have been under Tariff Heading 8483.00, allowed the Departmental appeal regarding classification but held that duty could not be demanded for the period April to August, 1987 as that would be hit by the limitation under Sec. 11A of the Act. The learned Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, has urged that the learned Collector (Appeals) has not followed the ratio of the Tribunal s judgment in the case of C.C.E., Bangalore v. M/s. Raman Boards Ltd., reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 892 (Tri.) = 1985 ECR 2366 holding that under Sec. 35E(2), (3) (4) the review power conferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1987 to 27-8-1988 should not be recovered. This show cause notice, after due process of law, culminated in the order of the Assistant Collector dated 7-6-1988. The learned Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, on 8-6-1988 issued an authorisation in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 35E of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944, urging the following grounds: The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Lalbagh Division, Bangalore Collectorate, who is the Competent Authority to approve classification list in pursuance of Rule 173B of Central Excise Rules, 1944, erred in approving the Classification List No. 1/87-88 which stood effective from 1-4-1987 filed by the respondents M/s. Suprajit Industries, Bangalore, wherein the impugned items ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or (Appeals) against the approval of the wrong classification, the Assistant Collector by his order dated 7-6-1988 had already reviewed his classification under the limited power of review conferred on him under Section 11A and had changed the classification from 9033.00 to 8483.00. As it is, therefore, on the day the Collector gave the authorisation for filing the appeal for changing the classification the classification stood approved as desired by him and, therefore, no cause of action would appear to survive in this context for the Collector (Appeals) to take note of. It is seen the learned Collector (Appeals) did not take note of the position as stood settled by the order of the Assistant Collector dated 7-6-1988 and he proceeded to pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill 1-1-1988 and why no demands were raised when on 16-3-1988 a show cause notice was issued on the RT 12 assessments which should have been finalised which they have already assessed immediately after the classification was approved on 1-1-1988 for the past period when the mistake was noticed on 16-3-1988. This gives us the impression that the RT 12 returns had already been assessed notwithstanding the non-approval of the classification list based on what had been claimed by the respondents. We are constrained to observe that the authorities have not come on record with the full facts nor they took note of the same while filing appeal before the Collector (Appeals) nor when the Assistant Collector chose to raise the demand in pursuance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
