9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve from 2-6-1998 under Rule 173B of Central Excise Rules, 1944, classifying the said products under Chapter Sub-Heading 9032.99. After examining technical write-up submitted by the appellants, it appeared that these goods were correctly classifiable under chapter sub-heading 9032.80. Accordingly show cause notice was issued to the appellants proposing reclassification of the goods under chapter sub-heading 9032.80 and demanding differential duty amounting to Rs. 1,17,905/- for the period from 1-1-1999 to 28-2-1999. The case was adjudicated by the Asstt. Commissioner who classified the products in dispute under chapter sub-heading 9032.80 and confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,17,905/-. The appeal against the said order of the Asstt. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra 51 of the judgment as under - 51. The procedure laid down under Rule I73B of the Rules has specifically been included in the Act. Furthermore, by reason of the amended Act a provision has been made for reopening the approved classification lists. It is a procedural provision in terms whereof statutory authorities are required to determine as to whether the earlier classification was correctly done or not. The said authority upon giving an opportunity of hearing the parties may come to the conclusion that decision on the approval granted need not be reopened and even if the same is reopened, the reasons therefore are to be stated. As the provision of Section 11A is a recovery provision as regards non-levy or non-paid or short levy or s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld have reclassified the goods from 1-9-1999. This issue was also raised before the Commissioner (Appeals). We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the plea of the appellants and he observed that amendment made in the Budget of the year 2000 by which Section 11A has been amended and action taken under Section 11A has been invalidated, he came to the conclusion that the demand can be made with the retrospective effect. The lower authority has correctly demanded the duty with retrospective effect under Section 11A. We find that the Asstt. Commissioner was the proper authority who raised the demand for retrospective period. We also find that the Supreme Court in case of ITW Signode India Ltd. v. CCE (supra) has clearly held that b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
