1997 (4) TMI 168

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Tariff). The classification, as declared by the assessee, was approved on 12-6-1986. The goods were said to have been supplied to the Indian Railways. On 5-1-1987, the Railways advised the assessee that the correct classification of the goods in question was under Heading 74.13, sub-heading 7413.90. A copy of the letter written by the Railways is at page 12 of the paper book. On 27-2-1987, the appellants addressed a communication to the Superintendent, Central Excise, Shahdara, submitting that they had inadvertently quoted Tariff Item No. 7405.10 instead of 7413.90. They submitted a revised classification list under this communication dated 27-2-1987 with the request that this revised classification be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ir appeal they have sought relief under a different sub-heading i.e. 7413.19 which had never been the subject matter of the impugned order. In the circumstances, I reject the appeal being infructuous. 3. Shri J. S. Agarwal, Advocate, stated that it was the responsibility of the Revenue to correctly classify the excisable goods and that when they received the communication from the Indian Railways, they revised their classification and that this revised classification should have been approved by the proper officers from 2-4-1986. No refund is involved in these proceedings and the matter relates only to the classification. He referred to the Rules relating to self-removal procedure and submitted that under Rule 173(b)(ii) the proper offic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rom 2-4-1986. 7. It is seen that the classification, as approved, was not challenged and no appeal was filed against the approved classification list. 8. The law is settled that if the classification list, already approved, is challenged, then it has to be within the period of limitation and any revision, subject to the law of limitation, had to be only prospective. In this case, the appellants had sought revision of the classification list for the year 1986-87 on the basis of the classification list for the year 1987-88. This is clear from the relief sought by the assessee in the appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X