9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ground that the Scales were unwrought copper having copper content of more than 80%. The list was verified by the jurisdictional Superintendent on 25-10-1984. Later on, a show cause notice dated 13-5-1985 challenging their classification of another item in the Classification List. The Assistant Commissioner concerned vide his order dated 26-11-1985, but signed on 5-12-1985, while amending the classification of the disputed product, in connection with the other serial numbers, held as follows: "........ I order that products mentioned in Serial Nos. l to 5 of the aforesaid classification list are approved as declared by the assessee........ " 2. Subsequently, on 28-8-1985, another show cause notice was issued on the ground that suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... changed, the assessees could not be asked to pay a differential duty for the previous period for which the classification had been duly approved by the Department although under another heading. In support of this claim, he relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay v. Ephnor reported in 1997 (20) RLT 136. On the strength of the said Judgment, he contended that the demand of duty does not survive. 5. Shri T. Prem Kumar, learned SDR relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. reported in 1995 (76) E.L.T. 499 (S.C.) in which a similar issue had come up for consideration. The Honourable Supreme Court had held that in such circumstances, the dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st, acted upon it and the goods were cleared with the knowledge of the Department, then in the absence of any amendment in law or judicial pronouncement, the re-classification should be effective from the date of the show cause notice. Although in the judgment of Ballarpur Industries, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down a different law, it was without disturbing the ratio of the decision in the case of Rainbow Industries. The specific observation reads as under : "The observations in the said decision must be confined to the facts of the case." We find that the facts of this case are identical to the facts narrated in the case of Rainbow Industries. In that case also, a show cause notice seeking re-classification was issued nearly one yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
