9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpounds with 7% to 10% of pigment. These PVC Master Batches are used for imparting colour to the PVC compound. Prior to May, 1979, the PVC Master Batches manufactured by the petitioners were classified as PVC compounds under TI-15A-1(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff and were cleared at Nil rate of duty under the Exemption Notification No.206/77 dated 29 th June, 1977. 3. On 7 th May, 1979 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners alleging that the PVC Master Batches manufactured by the petitioners were wrongly and incorrectly classified. On 29 th September, 1980 in supersession of the above, another show cause notice was issued to the petitioners stating that the PVC Master Batches manufactured by the petitioners were correctly classifiable under TI-14(1)(ii) with the rate of duty at 5%. By the said show cause notice, the petitioners were called upon to pay excise duty under TI-14(1)(ii) in respect of the PVC Master Batches cleared during the period from November, 1978 to April, 1979. The petitioners while objecting to the classification proposed by the department filed a classification list in May, 1979 classifying Master Batches under TI-14(1)(ii) under protest an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le by the petitioners in respect of the clearances effected during the period from 20 th April, 1979 to 28 th February, 1986. In the said letter it was stated that there was no need to issue a show cause notice and that the petitioners should comply with the letter of the Superintendent dated 9 th March, 1988. By a letter dated 4 th April, 1988 the Superintendent, Central Excise informed the petitioners that the demand quantified in the letter dated 9/3/1988 be read as Rs.10,39.664.98 instead of Rs.9,60,865.07. By a letter dated 15 th April, 1988 the Superintendent of the Central Excise threatened the petitioners with coercive action if the amount of demand was not paid within three days. However, the said letter was withdrawn by another letter of the same day i.e. 15 th April, 1988. 6. Thereafter by a letter dated 27 th April, 1988 the Superintendent of Central Excise once again called upon the petitioners to pay the differential duty amounting to Rs.10,39,664.98 within 5 days of the receipt of the said letter. The petitioners objected to the demand, however, ultimately on 16 th December, 1988 the petitioners paid the said amount of Rs.10,39,664.98 under protest and wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .T.349 (S.C.) and Collector of Central Excise V/s. Giridhara Supply Co . reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T.14 (S.C.), the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the claim of duty under TI-68 of the Central Excise Tariff for the period prior to the date of decision of the Tribunal dated 31 st March, 1987 is not maintainable and in any event in the absence of show cause notice, the excise authorities were not justified in demanding and collecting the differential excise duty under TI-68 for the period from April, 1979 to February, 1986. Accordingly, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire action on the part of the respondents is wholly illegal and contrary to law and, therefore, the respondents be directed to refund the illegally collected amount with interest. 9. Mr.R.V.Desai, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the demand raised in the present case is only as a consequence to the order of the Tribunal dated 31 st March, 1987 classifying the PVC Master Batches manufactured by the petitioners under TI-68 of the Central Excise Tariff. He submitted that once the Tribunal holds that the goods are classifiable und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time barred. 12. The question, therefore, to be considered in the present petition is, whether the Excise authorities were justified in demanding excise duty under TI-68 in the year 1988 in respect of the Master Batches cleared during the period from April, 1979 to February, 1986. As stated earlier, till the decision of the Tribunal on 31 st March, 1987, it was not even the contention of the Revenue that Master Batches are classifiable under TI-68. Even the Tribunal in its order dated 31 st March, 1987 has not held that the respondents are entitled to recover excise duty under TI-68 in respect of the past clearances. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the demand for recovery under TI-68 for the period from April, 1979 to February, 1986 is in the light of the decision of the Tribunal dated 31 st March, 1987 cannot be accepted. 13. In the present case, it is not in dispute that in May, 1979 the petitioners had filed classification list under protest classifying the Master Batches under TI-14 (1)(ii) as claimed by the revenue and since then the Master Batches have been cleared on payment of duty under TI-14(1)(ii) and that the assessment in respect of cleara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
