9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocate, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Order per : G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)]. - Arguing for the appellants Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Advocate submitted that the dispute is in respect of classification of the products namely rubber flaps used for animal drawn vehicles. He submitted that by mistake appellants have claimed classification under 4011.10 with reference to Notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation for the period 1-4-1987 to 31-10-1987. In this context Shri Satnam Singh submitted that two show cause notices were issued under Section 11A for raising the demand and the first show cause notice dated 23-11-1987 was with reference to the period 1-4-1987 to 31-10-1987 and the second notice dated 12-4-1988 raising the demand for the period 1-11-1987 to 1-12-1987. Shri Agarwal strongly relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lier. 2. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Another v. Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1988 (35) E.L.T. 349 (S.C.) has taken the view that demand cannot be raised unless show cause notice issued whenever department wants to change the classification. Further, su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. [1995 (75) E.L.T. 36 (S.C.)] and Union of India and Others v. Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1988 (35) E.L.T. 349 (S.C.) held that in respect of classification demand for short levy and on account of change in classification is enforceable from the date of show cause notice proposing revision of classification and not for earlier period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
