9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ming under Chapter 84.79 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Subsequently, the first respondent issued show-cause notices covering for the period from March to July, 1993, and from July, 1993 to December, 1993 indicating that the items should be re-classified under Chapters 81.08, 81.09 and 81.03 and not under Chapter 84, as approved earlier. The petitioner submitted replies refuting allegations made in the show-cause notices and justifying the inclusion of the items under Chapter-84. Apart from the aforesaid submission on merit, the petitioner also contended that initial classification having been accepted earlier, such classification could not be reopened unless the appropriate authority comes to a conclusion that there had been a change in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as inapplicable. The aforesaid order of the CEGAT confirming the orders of the lower authorities has been impugned in the present writ petition. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the observation of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that question of assessment can be re-opened only under certain circumstances as contemplated in the said decision, still holds good and in the absence of any such circumstances, it was not open to the authorities to reopen the proceedings. 4. The contention of the petitioner even though attractive on the face of it, cannot be accepted in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the decision already cited. In the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upon it and the goods were cleared with the knowledge of the Department, then in the absence of any amendment in law or judicial pronouncement, the reclassification should be effective from the date the Department issued the show cause notice. The reason for it is, say their Lordships, clearance with the knowledge of the Department and not intentional evasion of duty. On this line of reasoning it was held in that case that the appellant was not liable to pay duty in respect of the past period prior to the issuance of show cause notice to the appellant. We find it difficult to persuade ourselves to this line of reasoning. Although, in that case the Court did not notice Rule 10 as it stood prior to 6th August, 1976 even though the show caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
