9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entrifugal dryers; filtering or purifying machinery and apparatus, for liquids or gases 8421.10 - All goods other than parts 10% 8421.90 - Parts 15% 2. The appellants had filed classification list classifying the filter and filter elements under sub-heading 8421.10. Show cause notice was issued to them proposing to classify the filter and filter elements under 8421.90 of the Central Excise Tariff attracting rate of duty of 15% and also demanding differential duty for the period 16-3-95 to 31-3-95. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Hyderabad-II Division classifying the goods under sub-heading 8421.90 and confirming the differential duty for the period from 16-3-95 to 31-3-95. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner. 3. Shri Seshagiri Rao, Consultant appeared for the appellants and Shri M.K. Madhyastha, ld. JDR appeared for the Revenue. 4. The only point pleaded before us by the ld. Counsel for the appellants is that they are not disputing the classification but are disputing only the demand of differential duty. It was pleaded by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tariff entry to another. Prior to these budget proposals there was no tariff entry for cotton waste. Therefore, in the present case, restructuring of Tariff Heading 8421.00 into 8421.10 and 8421.90 is not in the nature of shifting item from one heading to another. As there is an increase in the rate of duty, the declaration made in the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931 will apply. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. Here the only issue to be considered is whether bifurcation of Heading 8421.00 as it stood prior to introduction of the Budget 1995-96 into two sub-headings will be effective from 16-3-95 or from May 1995 when the Finance Bill became the Finance Act. We find that the appellants have placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pieco Electronics Electricals Ltd. v. CCE, Pune reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) where it was held that proposed shifting of goods from one Tariff item to another, not covered by Provisional Collection of Taxes Act since this Act does not take account of exemption notifications nor shifting of goods to another entry amounts to new imposition. In Para 9 of the said decision, the Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er single Heading 8421.00. It was also submitted by him that the proposed shifting of goods from one tariff to another is not covered by Provisional Collection (Taxes) Act, since the Act does not take into account of the exemption notifications nor shifting of goods to another entry. Hence, the change proposed in the tariff became effective only from the date of enactment of Finance Bill. He mainly relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Seawell Filter Co. v. CCE, Indore reported in [2000 (115) E.L.T. 75 (Tribunal) = 2000 (36) RLT 285 (CEGAT)] in support of his contention. In that case also, the matter relates to the effect of restructuring of tariff entry under Clause 80 of the Finance Bill, 1985. In the Finance Bill, 1995, the classification of the felt components had been changed from sub-heading No. 5909.00 to 5911.90. The Commissioner was of the view that the changes made in the tariff description were effective from 16-3-95 when the bill was introduced in the Parliament. It was the contention of the party that the provisions of Provisional Collection (Taxes) Act was not applicable in respect of the change in the tariff description and such changes are effec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Budget for the year 1995-96, these goods were being classified under sub-heading 8421.00 along with centrifuges. At the time of introduction of the Budget for the year 1995-96, Heading 84.21 was bifurcated into two sub-headings viz. 8421.10 and 8421.90. The rate of duty was 10% prior to Budget 1995-96. The same rate of duty was continued for 8421.10, which covered all goods coming under 8421, other than the parts . For parts under 8421.90, the rate of duty provided was 15%. 12. The only dispute in this case is whether the appellant is liable to pay differential duty for the period 16-3-1995 to 31-3-1995, on filter and filter elements coming under 8421.90, attracting duty at the rate of 15%. Relying on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Pieco Electronics Electricals Ltd. v. CCE, Pune - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) and the decision of this Tribunal in Seawell Filter Co. v. CCE, Indore - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 75 (Tribunal) = 2000 (36) RLT 285 (CEGAT), the appellants submits that the restructured Tariff heading would become law only from the date of the enactment of the Finance Bill in May 1995 and not on the introduction of the Budget for the year 1995-96 on 16-3-1995. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, where it is already imposed, to increase it. By making the declaration under the said Act the imposition or increase becomes effective upon the introduction of the Bill. The said Act does not take account of Exemption Notifications for they apply only when goods are exigible to duty but, thereby, the payment of duty or a part thereof is exempted. 10. The plastic piece parts were, even under the unamended Entry 15A, exigible to excise duty but, by reason of the aforesaid Exemption Notification, exempted from the payment thereof. That, consequent upon the amended Entry 15A, the plastic piece parts would become liable to the payment of excise duty did not mean that there was an imposition of excise duty upon them or that they became liable thereto under Entry 68, not when the said Bill was enacted but from 28th February, 1982. 15. It is seen that in Pieco Electronics Electricals Ltd., plastic piece parts were exigible to excise duty even under the unamended Entry 15A. But the above item was enjoying the benefit of an Exemption Notification. It was not a case where, by the amendment, the duty was for the first time imposed on plastic piece parts or the rate of duty was incr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
