9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facturing the said goods since 1971 and right from that period onwards, dispute about the correct classification of the same and the correct rate of duty applicable thereon, had been going on between the appellant firm and the Department as is evident from the correspondence exchanged between the two. However, prior to the period in question i.e. 1-2-1978 to June, 1978 and 1-7-1978 to 31-7-1978. The appellants were paying duty under erstwhile Tariff Item 15A(2) and was availing the proforma credit of duty paid on the raw- material in terms of the provisions of Rule 56A, though they claimed the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 68/71, dated 29-5-1971 on the ground that the said product was a profile. 1.2. A classification l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nger falls under Tariff Item 15A(2), proforma credit on the resin consumed by them was not available under Rule 56A. They were, accordingly, directed not to avail proforma credit henceforth. The appellants also filed a fresh classification list under the cover of their letter dated 3/6-2-1978 classifying the said product under Tariff Item 22F and claiming exemption under Notification No. 54/75, dated 1-3-1975 and 179/77, dated 18-6-1977 (Though the appellant firm claims that this was done under the directions of the Department). Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 16-2-1978 was also issued to the appellant firm proposing to recover the proforma credit availed by them during the period from 16-3-1976 to 31-1-1978. The earlier classificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the clearances effected during the period from 1-2-1978 to 30-6-1978 and of Rs. 60,094.00 (basic) and Rs. 3,004.71 (special) in respect of the clearances made during the period from 1-7-1978 to 31-7-1978 on the ground that the fibreglass re-inforced polyester corrugated roofing was correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 15A(2). The said demands were confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner by his Order dated 8-11-1978 and 18-2-1978. Appeals against the above Orders failed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal before us. 2. Arguing on behalf of the appellant firm, Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, learned Consultant pleaded that as is evident from the history of the case, the Department has been shifting its stands as re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that they have not to be faulted upon because they have acted on the basis of Trade Notice and the subsequent instructions of the Department. He argued that the Department could not subsequently changed their stand which was against the trade notice and their instructions to the appellants and demand duty from them for the past period. He relied upon the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Ranade Micronutrients reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.) = 1996 (16) RLT 501 (S.C.) and submitted that the Department cannot be heard to argue against their own trade notices based upon Board s authority. He also submitted that the demand, if any, could be enforced against them only from the date of show cause notice proposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that there is no merit in the case and prayed for rejection of the appeal. 4. We have considered the submissions made from both the sides and have gone through the impugned Orders and the other relevant documents. With the introduction of Tariff Item 22F w.e.f. 16-3-1976, doubts were raised as to the coverage of the same to the Fibreglass Reinforced products. Board s clarification dated 7-12-1977 issued on the subject resulted in floating of trade notice by the Commissionerate. Trade Notice No. 285, dated 20-12-1977 issued by Calcutta Commissionerate, under whose jurisdiction, the appellant firm is situated, clarified that manufactured articles such as glass fibre tubes would be covered by Tariff Entry 22F. Though the appellant s prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to the issue of trade notice offering in document to the prospective exporters are in character executive. The Union Government and its Officers are on the authorities of this Court, not entitled at their whims to ignore the promises made by its Government. The other two judgments of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of M/s. Bengal National and M/s. Bhiwani Textile, relied upon by the appellant firm are also relevant and fully cover the appellant s case for demand of duty. The appellants having cleared the goods in accordance with the Department s directions given after due deliberation on the point, no demand for the said period can be confirmed against them. 5. Accordingly, while holding that the product in question was correctly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
