9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J) (Oral)]. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of measuring instruments including Infra-red Pyrometer. They were availing the benefit of Notification No. 79/90-C.E., dated 20-3-1990 in respect of Infra-red Pyrometer and accordingly paying duty @ 5% based on the approved classification of the goods under Sub-Heading ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , ibid. The department issued a show-cause notice denying the benefit of the Notification to the assessee on the goods reclassified under SH 9025.00 and demanding duty for a prior period. Contesting this demand, the assessee maintained that when the reclassification was prospective, there could be no retrospective demand. This argument was rejected by the adjudicating authority and the demand of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds of this appeal, learned JDR submits that the decision in Rainbow Industries (supra) was overruled by a bench of three Judges of the Supreme Court in Ballarpur Industries Ltd. v. Asst. Collector of Customs Central Excise, 1995 (76) E.L.T. 499 (SC). Ld. DR further submits that, with the retrospective amendment of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act by Finance Act, 2000, the demand of duty ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mendment made with retrospective effect from 17-11-1980 was applicable to all pending proceedings and that the decision of the Constitution Bench of the court in Collector v. Cotspun Ltd:, 1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) (holding that Rainbow Industries (supra) had correctly laid down the law on the point) was no longer good law. This legal position was reiterated by the apex court in the case of ITW ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
