2005 (11) TMI 72 - SC - Central Excise

Supreme Court overturns Tribunal's duty demand decision under Central Excise Act

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD Versus BCL FORGINGS LTD.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in a statutory appeal under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against the Customs, Excise and Gold ... Duty Demand - Held that:- when the goods have been cleared on the basis of approved classification list, the demand can only be prospective and Tribunal consequently set aside the demand as unsustainable - The amended Act was challenged and this Court in ITW Signode India Limited v. Collector of Central Excise reported in [2003 (11) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] upheld the constitutional validity of the Amending Act i.e. Finance Act, 2000 amending Section 11A of the Act. Resultantly the duty could be levied retrospective as well - Since the law laid down by this Court in Cotspun Limited's case (1999 (9) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) is no longer a good law, the order passed by the Tribunal has to be set aside - case is remitted to the Tribunal - Decided in favour of Revenue. Issues:Statutory appeal under Section 35L(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 against final judgment and order by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal - Duty demand for a specific period - Applicability of retrospective amendment to Section 11A of the Act - Setting aside Tribunal's order and remitting the case for fresh decision on merits.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a statutory appeal under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a final judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The duty demand in question amounts to Rs. 31,24,189.11 for the period between 1-3-1988 to 31-8-1988, following the approval of a classification list on 13-6-1988 under Chapter Heading 73.26. The appellant issued show cause notices proposing reclassification under different headings, which led to a legal dispute.The Tribunal, referring to a decision by the Supreme Court in a similar case, ruled that demands based on approved classification lists should only be prospective. However, subsequent to this ruling, the legislature amended Section 11A of the Act through the Finance Act, 2000, with retrospective effect. This amendment aimed to nullify the impact of the previous judgment and enable retrospective levy of duties. The constitutional validity of this amendment was upheld by the Supreme Court in a different case, affirming the authority to levy duties retrospectively.In light of the legislative amendment and the subsequent validation by the Supreme Court, the earlier ruling by the Tribunal was deemed outdated and set aside. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, directing the parties to bear their own costs. Furthermore, since the Tribunal did not decide the dispute on its merits, the case was remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration based on the current legal framework and amendments to the Act.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the interplay between statutory appeals, retrospective amendments to tax laws, and the application of legal precedents in determining duty demands under the Central Excise Act. The decision underscores the significance of legislative changes in shaping the legal landscape and necessitates a fresh examination of disputes in light of updated legal provisions.