9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (6) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble under Item 68 with effect from 1-3-1975 since Item 68 was introduced into the Tariff Schedule. In the order dated 25/26-7-1985 passed by the Asstt. Collector it was held by him that the goods would be classifiable under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Tariff. Subsequently, on that basis the classification lists were approved by him on 15-10-1985. The appellants have filed two appeals against the respective orders passed by the Asstt. Collector and also one more appeal has been filed by them against letter dated 21-1-1988 issued by the Asstt. Collector (A & R) Central Excise Collector, Delhi re-determining the duty amount of Rs. 1.93 crores (approximately) based on the order of the Principal Collector with reference to the demand already raised on the basis of classification. 3. These three appeals were disposed of by common order in appeal No. 529 to 531 dated 9-8-1990 by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. Feeling aggrieved by the said common order they have come before us by way of these three appeals. The Asstt. Collector determined the classification of the products in question under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Tariff based upon the observations by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve, I hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the process of machining, polishing and/or drilling holes on the forged shapes make them as identifiable parts of machine having different name, character and use. Merely because the forged shapes and sections are used subsequently for the manufacture of another article namely, machine parts, it does not mean that the earlier process of manufacture was not complete. I hold that after removal of superfluous extra skin of forgings the goods in question are subjected to sophisticated machining and drilling for the specific purposes of manufacturing machine parts. After the aforesaid process, the flanges cease to be shapes and sections and by these process transformation or substantial change takes place and shapes and sections go out of the purview of Tariff Item 26AA (i-a). All the authorities of Central Excise have rightly come to the conclusion that the goods in question are identifiable as machining parts. It is not possible to hold that the conclusion of the authorities is perverse. The forged products which undergo the further process like machining, polishing and drilling holes to make them identifiable as machine part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een from the records. Detailed process of the manufacture of the product in question was considered as it was admitted by the party before the High Court and referred to the Para 15 of the judgments dated 12-12-1984 wherein it observed that "Merely because a manufactured goods is used subsequently for manufacturing another article it cannot be concluded that the earlier process of manufacture was not complete or finished goods had not come into existence. Forged products which are machined, polished, holled etc. and made fit for being used as machine parts assume a different name, character and usage. Such forged products as are machined/drilled/polished assume an altogether different character from what it was when forged and so as to make them identifiable or usable as machine parts". 8. The appellants not being satisfied with the findings of the Single Judge preferred an appeal before the Division Bench but they did not succeed even before the Division Bench and on the other hand upheld the order of the Single Judge holding that ld. Single Judge rightly held that the transformation takes place by further process of manufacture and as such the appellants are liable to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hile upholding the view of the Single Judge, observation made by the Division Bench in para 17 of his judgment reads as under :- "Whether transformation has taken place or not and whether a new and different article, having distinct name, character or use, has emerged or not is essentially a question of fact depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Whether execution of a particular kind of work, result in manufacture of a new and distinct article would also depend on a number of tests, some of them being, (i) the nature of the work carried out, (ii) whether the material undergoes alteration or change in its essential nature and character, (iii) whether anything more is required to be done to the said article or the same is marketable without any further process. It will differ from product to product. There can be no hard and fast rules. The nature and extent of processing may vary from one case to another. In a given case, even a small change may lead to a new article having distinct name, character and use being made. In yet another case it may be so. To become a new commercial article, the product must cease to be the goods of the taxable description and become ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst this order but they gave representation to the Principal Collector disputing the calculation of the duty amount. In pursuance to the direction given by the Principal Collector the Asstt. Collector (A & R) revised the demand to Rs. 1.93 crores (approximately) vide letter dt. 21-1-1988. This demand is the subject matter of the dispute before the Collector (Appeals) in the present proceedings and the Collector (Appeals) modified the demand for different periods as indicated below on the ground that these periods are covered by show cause notices except for the period 26-11-1975 to 30-11-1980. S. No. Period Ground on which demand is sustained by the Collector (Appeals). (1) 1-3-1975 to 24-6-1975 Letter dt. 24-6-1975 issued by the Supdt. is to be taken as a demand notice. (2) 25-6-1975 to 25-11-1975 Notice of demand dt. 19-11-1975 and 25-11-1975. (3) 26-6-1975 to 30-4-1980 -- -- -- -- -- (4) 1-5-1980 to 18-8-1980 That Supdt's show cause notice dt. 31-10-1980 (5) 19-8-1980 to 1984-85 On the ground that the appellant had got a stay of the operation of Govt. of India's order dt. 2-8-1980 on 19-2-1981 and that since the Asstt. Collector came to a decision about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Asstt. Collector as per his order dt. 25/26-7-1985 should be excluded in terms of the proviso to Section 11A. High Court stayed the operation of the order of Govt. of India only on 19-2-1981 and there was more than six months in between 2-8-1980 and 19-2-1981 and no show cause notice had been issued before in the said period and accordingly, the period which could be excluded in terms of explanation to Section 11A is only the period from 19-2-1981 to 12-12-1984 and not prior to that period or to the subsequent period. During the period where stay of the High Court was in operation stay order is applicable for the recovery of demand and not for issuing show cause notice. In support of his contention he referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum, reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 53 (SC), in which Apex Court upheld the Karnataka High Court order that stay of collection of duty did not amount to stay in relation to issue of show cause notice. It was held in para 8 of that judgment that the "High Court having directed stay of collection had, therefore, not given any interim direction in the matter of issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CDR reiterated the reasons given in the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals). He said that classification issue of product in question was in dispute since the beginning and the appellants constantly challenging this issue either in one form or another including before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and no finality was reached about the classification of the product and, therefore, no demand could be raised till the Asstt. Collector passed the order on 25/26-7-1985 in pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dt. 12-12-1984. He said that ratio of the decision in the case of Samrat International (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, reported in 1992 (58) E.L.T. 561 (SC) = 1991 (33) ECR 19 (SC) is applicable to this case since classification was not finalised till passing the order of the Asstt. Collector in pursuance of the direction of the High Court and accordingly, demand was not barred by time. He also referred to the decisions in the case of Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad, reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 11 wherein it was held that it is obvious that unless it is decided that the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. that earlier order dt. 22-1-1976 passed by the Asstt. Collector was only provisional till the passing of the order in pursuance of the order of the High Court. We find that the order dt. 22-1-1976 was not provisional but final against which appeal and the revision proceedings have taken place. Continuance of dispute on classification issue will not convert final order into a provisional. Letters either in the form of suggestion or advice or deemed notice issued prior to finalisation of the classification cannot be taken note of as show cause notices for the recovery of demand since issue of show cause notice for the recovery of demand will not arise till the finalisation of the classification. Once classification was approved Deptt. was required to issue show cause notice for the recovery of demand either for six months or 5 years as the case may be under Section 11A. Invoking larger period under Sec- tion 11A does not arise in this case in view of the facts and circumstances and finding given by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order that there is no suppression of facts to attract larger period. But point to be noted in this case is that no show cause notice has been is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of this notice. But this show cause notice cannot be said to be show cause notice for determining the quantum of duty as no quantum was indicated therein. We are also not convinced with the submissions made by the DR that duty amount could not be quantified as the party was not co-operative in furnishing details. Deptt. should have enforced the provisions of the Act in issuing summons etc. to get the relevant information. Difficult to conceive that Deptt. could not get information in spite of its vast machinery. Since much water has flown after this order by issuing a demand notice on 2-8-1985, same was modified by the Asstt. Collector on 21-1-1988 revising the demand on the direction given by the Principal Collector with reference to representation given by the party regarding quantum of duty and still quantum is yet to be finalised as it was pointed out by the DR, we are of the view that the continued correspondence subsequent to the passing of the order dt. 26-7-1985 itself served as a purpose in giving opportunity to the party in determination of the quantum of duty since quantum is not yet finalised. We direct the deptt. to redetermine the duty amount payable by the party fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te 67/73 dt. 1-3-1973 Thesepro-ducts are supplied in forged and /or skin cut and/or shot blasted condition. c. Forged Steel Flanges & other fittings for high pressure pipe lines of Petrochemical & other projects and for Exports. 26AA(ia) -do- 67/73 dt. 1-3-1973 These pro-ducts are supplied in forged and /or skin cut and/or shot blast- ed condition. d. Forged Steel Flanges & other fittings for high pressure pipe lines of Petrochemical & other projects for Export, fully Machined & Drilled. 26AA(ia) -do- 67/73 dt. 1-3-1973 These pro-ducts are supplied in for ged and fully machined condition, but the final Threading, Lapping, Welding are done by the customers at site. 3. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Forged Steel Products (Shapes & Sections not otherwise specified)- manufactured out of semi-finished steel products, viz: a. Steel Forgings for Auto and Tractors like Forged Crank shafts, Forged connecting Rods, orged Pinions, orged Gears, orged Levers, orged Shaftings. 26AA(ia) Rs. 165/- Basic Duty (-)Rs. 100/-Ingot Duty, Rs. 65/- Basic paid duty+100% Auxiliary Duty 63/73 dt. 1-3-1973 & 19/74 dt. 1-3-1973 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication to the Government of India an order-in-revision dt. 2-8-1980 was passed by the Government observing as follows :- "The issue of classification of machined forgings has been considered by the Government earlier in a decision Application filed by M/s. Guest Keen Williams Ltd. Government of India Order in Revision No. 176 of 1979 dated 3-3-1979 (copy enclosed). The Government held therein that all forged shapes and sections, other than those specifically classifiable under Tariff Items 1 to 67 Central Excise Tariff are leviable to duty under Tariff Item 26AA(ia) and that if such forged shapes and sections are further subjected to other processes that would make them classifiable as component parts of machinery, then they would be leviable to further duty and or Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. Government further held that if after forging a few further processes are undertaken then the goods would remain classifiable under Tariff item 26AA(ia) unless these processes made the products identifiable parts of machinery. Government observe that the ratio of the order mentioned above would be equally applicable to this case. Forgings would not cease to be forgings, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llows :- "The Central Excise authorities are granted opportunity to determine as to which of the forged products of iron and steel manufactured by the petitioner are transformed by a further process of manufacture as parts of machinery lia- ble to duty under Tariff Item 68 in addition to the duty at the stage of forging." 19.6 The appellants thereafter filed a letter Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in respect of Delhi High Court in respect of the steel flanges manufactured by them. This is apparent from the following observations in the opening para of Delhi High Court's D.B. judgment dt. 12-8-1987 in the following words (photo copy brought on record by the appellants) :- "The main question for determination in the Letters Patent Appeal is whether the steel flanges manufactured by the appellants are classifiable for payment of excise duty under T.I. No. 26AA(ia) or under Item No. 68 of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944." It is further apparent by the observations of the Court at page 2 of the judgment to the following effect :- "According to the appellants, the dispute in this appeal is only with regard to flanges and no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pay certain sum in accordance with the decision on classification of their products, as already communicated to them, vide letter dated 25/26th July 1985. Against such a demand notice no appeal is maintainable and therefore, no stay application also can obviously be entertained. Ordered accordingly." 19.10 The appellants thereafter pursued the matter with the Principal Collector and they received a letter dated 21-1-1988 quantifying demand of Rs. 1,93,55,660.44p for the period 1975-76 to 1984-85. One of the appeals against this order was filed before the Collector (Appeals). 19.11 Third appeal dealt with by the impugned order is against approval of classification lists for the subsequent period in 1985. 19.12 Two hearings appear to have been given by the lower appellate authority before he passed the impugned order and two written notes styled as (i) `Resume of Facts' and (ii) `Note of Submission' were given to the Collector (Appeals) on 23-5-1990 and 22-6-1990 respectively. 20. In the aforesaid factual background, learned consultant for the appellants, Shri Lachman Dev, has urged that the lower appellate authority has erred in relying on the observations of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l under T.I. 68 or they continue to remain under T.I. 26AA(ia) or T.I. 25 (w.e.f. 1-8-1983) has not been complied with. 20.2 Learned JCDR, Shri S. Kak, for the Revenue has drawn attention to the various observations in the judgment of Delhi High Court (Single Judge) and Division Bench judgment relied upon by the learned lower appellate authority. He has also brought on record the correspondence exchanged between the appellants and the Assistant Collector before passing of the impugned order dated 26-7-1985 e.g. letter dated 31-1-1985 refers to a visit of the Assistant Collector to the appellants factory on 30-1-1985. A letter dt. 1-3-1985 from the Assistant Collector to the appellants shows that the appellants have been requested to furnish a list of products with full description manufactured by them immediately. Letter dated 13-2-1985 by the Assistant Collector in response to appellants' letter dated 31-1-1985 shows as to what happened during the visit of the Assistant Collector on 30-1-1985. It is appropriate to produce the relevant extracts from the said letter dated 13-2-1985 :- "During the visit, it was explained to your representatives, Shri Raj Kumar and Shri Vinod K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 89 (40) E.L.T. 257 (SC). Paras 20, 21 and 22 are reproduced below :- "20. Lachmeshwar v. Keshwar Lal, AIR 1941 F.C. 5 is an authority for holding that the hearing of appeal under the procedural law of India is in the nature of re-hearing and therefore in moulding the relief to be granted in a case on appeal, the appellate court is entitled to take into account even facts and events which have come into existence after the decree appealed against. Consequently, the appellate court is competent to take into account legislative changes since the decision under appeal was given and its powers are not confined only to see whether the lower court's decision was correct according to the law as it stood at the time when its decision was given. Once the decree of the High Court has been appealed against, the matter became subjudice again and thereafter the court had seisin of the whole case, though for certain purposes, e.g., execution, the decree was regarded as final and the courts below retained jurisdiction in that regard. This was followed in Shyabudinsab v. The Gadag Betgeri Municipal Borough, 1955 (1) S.C.R. 1268 where after the judgment of the High Court and after grant of special ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs." This having not been done, I am of the view that the matter is fit for remand to the lower appellate authority for deciding the classification of the products after taking into account the entire material brought on record by the appellants before the said authority and not merely by relying on Delhi High Court's D.B. judgment dated 2-8-1989. Needless to say that the appellants would be at liberty to produce such further evidence, as they desire, with the permission of the lower appellate authority, to substantiate their pleas. 22. As regards the question of limitation, it may not be strictly necessary to give a finding on this question in view of my finding of remand on the main question of classification, nevertheless I would like to record my finding for the purpose of settling the issue at my level so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation. I may say at the outset that the various documents have been treated as show cause notices by the lower appellate authority. I do not find those documents to be adequate as show cause notices as contemplated under Rule 10 or Section 11A, as the case may be. These docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Central Govt. dt. 2-8-1980." 22.1A It is apparent from this stay order that it is not merely a stay on collection or recovery of the duty from appellants. It is a total stay on the operation of the Government of India's order dated 2-8-1980 with the result that even the proceedings for classification of the goods, as directed by the Central Government could not be pursued by the Assistant Collector. The period of stay by Delhi High Court w.e.f. 19-2-1981 would, therefore, be excluded from computing the time limit under Section 11A in respect of recovery of duty on clearances by the appellants. Another consequence of the stay by the Delhi High Court (Single Judge) is that the question of classification of all the products under consideration revived and the clearances not only after this dated 19-2-1981 should be treated as provisional clearances pending decision of the High Court but also clearances after 2-8-1980, the date of the order of the Central Government, would also be treated as provisional since the Government of India directed the Asstt. Collector to examine the goods and decide the classification of each product in the light of their observations thereby making ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the date of this assessment that time bar in Section 11B will operate. In the present case the refund application had been filed on the 30th of October, 1985. It cannot, therefore, said to be time barred." [Emphasis Supplied] Subsequent letter dated 2-8-1985 is in pursuance of finalisation of the classification dispute by the Assistant Collector vide his order dated 26-7-1985. There is no time limit for finalisation of the assessment in respect of provisional clearances laid down in any rule or provision of the Act. It is only after finali- sation of the provisional assessment that the question of time bar in terms of Rule 10 or Section 11A would arise. Since the appellants had not been maintaining any records or submitting any R.T. 12 returns despite constant reminders to them and despite a show cause notice in 1980 and imposition of penalty on them, correct final assessment could not be made by the department and they had to necessarily fall back on figures taken from the annual reports of the assessee. Since such reports are not a correct indication of the manufacture and clearance of goods under consideration by the appellants, a show cause notice before finalisation of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... classification of the disputed goods was concerned the matter had reached finality in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the appellants own case. He contended that in holding that the disputed goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 68, both the Collector (Appeals) and Member (Judicial) had over-looked the fact that the relevant judgment of the Delhi High Court was only in respect of one item, namely, "flanges". He contended on the basis of the judgment of the Delhi High Court, if at all, finality can be deemed to have been achieved only in regard to the classification of "flanges". He stated that from Government of India Order-in-Revision extracted by Member (Technical) also it follows that only precision machining would render forged products as classifiable under Tariff Item 68. He contended that under these circumstances as held by Member (Technical) the matter needs to be remanded to the Assistant Collector for determining the status of each product in the light of the principles for classification of forged products which have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. UOI, reported in 1988 (35) E.L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Davanagere Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Chairman, C.B.E.C., reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 295 the Member (Judicial) has correctly held that the demand for the period when the stay granted by the High Court was in force would not be sustainable. He reiterated his stand that the finding by the Member (Judicial) that the order dated 26-7-1985 could be treated as Order-cum-show cause notice is erroneous since the said order was not preceded by any show cause notice. He stated that the only ground on which Member (Technical) had held that the assessments between 1-3-1975 to 25-11-1975 could be deemed as provisional was that during this period some correspondence was going on between the Department and the Appellants. He stated that from the Superintendent letter dated 24-6-1975 and the Order-in-Original dated 22-1-1976 passed in regard to the classification list submitted by the appellants it was evident that during the relevant period the concerned authorities had not entertained any doubts and as held by Member (Judicial) no provisional assessment was ordered. He submitted that finding by the Member (Technical) that assessments during the period 2-8-1980 to 26-7-1985 can also to be tre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contended that under these circumstances the demand for the entire period has to be held as time barred. 26. On behalf of the respondents, Shri Siddharth Kak, ld. Jt. CDR making his submissions on the question of classification referred to the relevant classification list extracted on pages 18 to 20 of the Tribunal's order and stated that the disputed items were mainly flanges and the other products were similar in nature. He contended that under these circumstances the findings of the Delhi High Court in respect of flanges would be equally applicable to other disputed products. He referred to para 5 of the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) and contended that the Collector (Appeals) had examined the classification of the products in question in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. and Bharat Forge. He also referred to the order passed by the Assistant Collector on the basis of which the Collector (Appeals) had examined the classification of the goods in question and pointed out that in that order all the details regarding the processing to which the items had been subjected had been brought out. He stated that the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as held by Member (Technical) the question relating to the classification cannot be deemed to have been settled and the matter was to be remanded to the lower authority for deciding the classification of the products after taking into account the entire material brought on record by the appellants. In this regard he contended that even though the Collector (Appeals) had referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. he had failed to examine the issue relating to the classification in the light of the said judgment. He reiterated his stand that `Flange' was only one of the disputed items and argued that the observations of the Delhi High Court were not applicable in respect of the other disputed products. He reiterated his stand that the classification of the disputed product could not be deemed to have been settled and as ordered by the Member (Technical), it would be proper to remand the matter to the lower authorities for determining the correct classification of each item with reference to the relevant documents and in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. He stated that it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6AA(ia) of the Central Excise Tariff since such machining and polishing is incidentally or ancillary to the manufacture of forged products as per Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and such goods on further precision machining become chargeable to duty once again under Tariff Item 68. The Collector (Appeals) while discussing the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TISCO and Bharat Forge reported in 1990 (45) E.L.T. 525 (SC) has correctly observed that these judgments lay down the principles for the classification of forged products but each case has to be decided on the basis of particular facts and circumstances of the case. As pointed out by the Collector (Appeals) the appellants had moved the Hon'ble Delhi High Court against the judgment dated 12-12-1984 passed by the learned single judge of the same court. The Delhi High Court while dismissing the appeal after going into the details of the manufacturing process of the goods, nature and condition of the products leaving the factory, their identity in the commercial word and taking into account the various judicial pronouncement which referred to tests similar to the tests laid down by the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of Central Excise under Tariff Item 68 in addition to the duty under Item 26AA(ia) at the stage of forging. The appellants' contention is that the judgment of the Div. bench had only settled the question of classification of flanges. In my view this does not appear to be correct and the judgment appears to have finally settled the matter regarding classification of the disputed products. It is also seen that in terms of the order of the learned single Judge which was confirmed by the Div. Bench the Assistant Collector after examining the facility available in the appellants' factory, the process adopted by them and the nature of the goods finally produced had arrived at the following conclusion :- "In view of the above discussions, I classify the products manufactured by the party namely, Flange, Rings, Discs, Connecting Rods, Pinions, Shafting, Gears, Crankshafts etc., which are clearly known as machinery parts in the trade/commercial parlance, under Tariff Item 68. The party is hereby directed to obtain Central Excise licence under Tariff Item 68 immediately on receipt of this order and clear the goods only after following central excise formalities and on payment of appropri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent authority and after rejection of their appeal against the Assistant Collector's order dated 22-1-1976 by the Collector (Appeals) the appellants filed a Revision application. The show cause notice dated 31-10-1980 issued by the Superintendent indicates that the Govt. of India by order dated 2-8-1980 had ordered the recovery of duty in pursuance of order-in-appeal dated 19-6-1976. Referring to the order dated 19-2-1981 passed by the Delhi High Court staying the operation of the Govt. of India order dated 2-8-1980 Member (Technical) has held that the High Court's stay order dated 19-2-1981 as confirmed by the order dated 14-7-1981 was not merely an order staying the recovery of duty but it amounted to a total stay on the operation of the Govt. of India order dated 2-8-1980 which resulted in the proceedings for classification of the goods directed by the Government not being pursued by the Assistant Collector. It has, therefore, been held that stay by the Delhi High Court had the effect of reviving the question of classification of all the products under consideration and for this reason not only clearances pending decision of the High Court but also clearances after 2-8-1980 i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
