Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1997 (4) TMI 299

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ral Excises Salt Act, 1944 and a further penalty of Rs. 4.00 crores under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules. 2. The ld. Sr. Counsel Shri A. Hidayatullah appeared for the applicants with Shri M.P. Baxi the ld. Advocate. It was submitted that the Department seeks to classify the adhesive product manufacture by the applicants which are sold in sets under sub-heading 3909.60 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, as Polyurethene. Whereas according to the applicants the goods are classifiable as prepared glues and other prepared adhesive, not elsewhere specified or included under sub-heading 3506.00. The ld. Counsel submitted that the appellants products were nothing but adhesive and, in terms of Section Notes, 2 of Section VI of the Tariff Act, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 11AC and as to why interest should not be demanded from them under Section 11AB and on considering their reply the Commissioner passed the impugned order,in which he also disposed off in addition to the Show Cause Notice dated 4-8-1993, 9 other Show Cause Notices issued between 26-11-1992 and 29-6-1995 issued by the Assistant Commissioner and for a total demand of over Rs. 7.00 crores as stated above. The ld. Sr. Counsel contended that the Commissioner was unjustified invoking the longer period for demanding the duty; the period involved is between July, 1988 and April, 1992, in which the Show Cause Notice had been issued only on 4-8-1993. As has been brought out the applicants had from time to time been submitting their classification lis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Therefore, the Commissioner in this case could not take a different view by stating that the Chief Chemist report is not furnishing the relevant data for determination of classification as has been done in the impugned order. The consistent approval by the Department of their classification list over the period would itself be a ground against the Department invoking the longer period. The ld. Sr. Counsel in this context referred to the well established principle by decisions of the Tribunal that the authority approving the Classification List should do so after conducting all necessary enquiries, and in this case all the classification lists had been approved subject to the Chemical test. The ld. Sr. Counsel also assailed the penalty unde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... heading 3909.60 which is specific for such material is applicable and not Heading 35.06 which is a residuary item covering glues and adhesives not elsewhere specified. The specific heading is therefore to be preferred as has been done by the Commissioner. The same result would follow according to the Sr. Counsel when the two reports of the Dy. Chief Chemist are read together. The ld. Sr. Counsel also argued that the Commissioner was justified invoking the longer period because the Department came to know that the products manufactured by the applicants are complementary to each other and are cleared in sets only when they filed classification list for export purposes giving individual classification of the ingredients of the products; this .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ts Classification under Heading 35.06 CETA and the applicants are advised to contact the Collector Bombay III. Therefore this is not, on the face of it a Tariff Advice by the Board nor is it a Circular letter addressed all Collectors. On the other hand it is reply to a particular representation by the applicants. Prima facie therefore, it would not have the attributes of an order under Section 37B by the Board. The case law cited in this behalf are distinguishable as they related to instances where there were clarificatory orders and Tariff Advice by the Board addressed to the field formations which fall for consideration by the Supreme Court. In considering the plea that the longer period under Section 11A cannot be invoked, the fact that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates