9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise confirming a duty demand of Rs.1,18,23,374.73. This Order-in-Original was agitated by the assessees before the Commissioner (Appeals) who had disposed of the same vide Order-in-Appeal Nos. 122-124/98(MDU) dated 28-9-1998. Both the parties being aggrieved by this Order-in-Appeal are now before us. 2. The basic issue concerns the classifiction of dipped man-made fabrics which had been earlier classified under 54.09 from time to time and such classification list had been approved by the jurisdictionaI Assistant Collector. The department proposed reclassification under heading 5906.90 vide Show cause notice dated 10-12-1986. Subsequently, two other show cause notices were issued dated 20-1-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, had indicated their resolve to change the classification vide show cause notice dated 10-12-1986. Therefore, the relevant date should have been with respect to the first show cause notice issued on 10-12-1986 and not the notice dated 20-1-1987 which, in any case, has been considered as merely amending the earlier notice in view of the clear findings to this effect in the Order-in-OriginaI. Ld. D.R. also desires to put on record that vide their memo filed in Court on 17-12-1999, the assessees have now indicated that they would like to withdraw the additional pleas that the classification under heading 5409.00 should not have been changed. The net effect of this memo is that they are not agitating or contesting the merits of the case as fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited was concerned with exactly such a situation where the Revenue desired to open classification which had already been approved under classification list submitted earlier under some other heading. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the ratio of the decision of Cotspun Ltd. supra would be applicable in this case. 7. When the aforesaid decision of Cotspun Ltd. is applied the facts of this case, we further consider another area of dispute has emerged. This is with relation to the effect of date from which this revised classification should have the effect in terms of being allowed only prospectiveIy. In this connection, we note that though the Revenue had first issued a show cause notice dated 10-12-1986, the same had p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Original, and there after upheld by the Order-in-AppeaI impugned should, after applying the ratio of Cotspun Ltd. supra, survive only with effect from 20-1-1987, which was the date of the show cause notice whose demand was approved and confirmed in the Order-in-OriginaI. Therefore, we order that the entire demand upheld by the Order-in-AppeaI impugned prior to 20-1-1987 shall stand quashed as time barred in view of the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in the case of Cotspun supra. 8. We now proceed to consider the submission of Shri Thakur with respect to the applicability of the Board's order issued under Section 37B to this case. We are unable to accept this contention for the following reasons :- The date of issue of the Section 37B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
