Supreme Court clarifies product classification under Central Excise Act, emphasizes clarity and recalls order.

The Supreme Court recalled its order due to factual errors in stating the items in dispute but clarified no mistakes in findings. The Court classified products like Scrabble/Upwords under CH 95.04 of the Central Excise and Tariff Act, rejecting the argument for a different classification. Regarding limitation, the Department's claim was limited to a specific period, with the second show-cause notice deemed within limitation. The Court emphasized the need for clarity, recalling the previous order to rectify errors, allowing the Department's Civil Appeals with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues:
1. Factual errors in stating particulars of items in dispute.
2. Classification of products under Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985.
3. Question of limitation regarding show-cause notices.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court recalled its order due to factual errors in stating the items in dispute, clarifying that there were no mistakes in the findings or conclusions recorded. The order dated 12th November, 2009, in Civil Appeal Nos. 3460-3462 of 2004 was recalled to rectify the errors.

2. In a previous judgment, the Court classified the product "Scrabble/Upwords" under CSH 9504.90 of the Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985, under CH 95.04 for articles related to funfair, table games, and casino equipment. The Court rejected the argument that the product fell under CSH 9503.00 for other toys. The appeal dealt with 34 items, including Scrabble/Upwords, Monopoly, and Snake and Ladder, which were classified under CH 95.04 based on the previous judgment.

3. Regarding the question of limitation, the Court decided that for the first show-cause notice dated 23rd November, 2001, the Department's claim should be limited to the period after October 2000, depending on the decision on classification. The second show-cause notice dated 1st May, 2001, was within limitation, allowing the Department to proceed accordingly. The Court emphasized the need for clarity in its order and recalled the previous order to rectify the errors, allowing the Civil Appeals filed by the Department with no order as to costs.

---