9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (7) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alorem. The contention of the appellants is that the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Faridabad arbitrarily changed the classification of the same on 24-11-1975 to Tariff Item 34(4) (Motor Vehicles, not otherwise specified) attracting duty @ 15% ad valorem or ₹ 3,000/- per tractor whichever is higher. Shri C.L. Sawhney, on behalf of the appellants, further contended that the action of the Asstt. Collector was in violation of principles of natural justice since no show cause notice was issued, nor any opportunity of personal hearing was granted though the appellants sought for the same (In this context attention was drawn to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court and Madras High Court in Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Asstt. Collector on the ground that once the Asstt. Collector had finalised the classification list, there was no question of granting any hearing to them and as regards the time bar, he observed that one year was available to the Department for raising the demand, as the Classification List was approved by the Asstt. Collector on 24-11-1975 and the show cause notice was issued on 24-6-1976. 3. Shri A.K. Jain, on behalf of the respondent, started his arguments by stating that the tariff advice given by the Board was not binding on the Asstt. Collector who was a quasi-judicial authority and hence he was not bound by that advice and the classification given by him was correct in law. He further argued that this case did not involve any c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods in issue would squarely fall within the ambit of Tariff Item 34(3a) (now 34-II) as per the reasoning given in tariff advice referred to above. We strongly feel that the demand issue arose only because of the incorrect classification and as such we do not agree with the arguments of Shri Jain that the classification issue is not before us but on the other hand we feel that is the main or rather real issue which is now before us and hence we feel that the goods under issue would squarely fall under the old Tariff Item No. 34(3a) of the Central Excise Tariff with consequential relief to the appellants. When once the classification issue is decided, it is totally unnecessary to go into the matter whether any portion of the period for which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
