9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arbon paper, which was classified by them under Tariff Item 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff; that they were periodically filing the classification lists under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 with the Department and these classification lists were duly approved by the proper officer; that a show cause notice dated 8-2-1980 was issued to them for classifying the impugned product under Tariff Item 17(2) and another show cause notice dated 11-3-1980 was issued proposing to withdraw the classification approved by the Excise Department; that, subsequently, a letter dated 21-4-1980 was issued to them for demanding differential duty for the period from 16-3-1976 to 31-12-1979; that the Commissioner, under the impugned Order, has con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only for the period commencing from 17-11-1980 when Section 11A of the Central Excise Act came into effect; that Section 110 of the Finance Act does not validate the action taken under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that as in the present matter demand has been raised under Rule 10 after approval of the classification lists, the same is not sustainable. 4. Countering the arguments, Shri S.M. Tata, learned SDR, reiterated the findings as contained in the impugned Order and emphasised that the Supreme Court in the case of ITW Signode India Ltd. v. C.C.E. [2003 (158) E.L.T. 403 (S.C.)] has upheld the validity of Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 and the duty can be demanded retrospectively even when the classification lists ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s v. C.C.E., Vadodara [2005 (179) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 2004 (97) ECC 729 (S.C.)] that there was no wilful suppression of facts on the part of the appellants as they had filed classification lists which were duly approved by the Department. Accordingly, in the present matter, the extended period of limitation is not invokable and the demand beyond the normal period of limitation is barred by time limit provided under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Further, ratio of the decision in the case of Cotspun Ltd. (supra) is also applicable to the facts of the present matter. It has been held by the Supreme Court therein that the levy of excise duty on the basis of an approved classification list, is the correct levy, at least until such tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
