Exemption on date of removal prevails over later classification filing; differential duty demand was unsustainable.

Differential duty could not be demanded merely because a revised classification list claiming exemption was filed after the clearances, where the assessee was otherwise eligible for exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. on the date of removal. The text states that exemption availability on the clearance date is material, while filing the classification list is only procedural, and that the clearances had not crossed the relevant turnover limit. On that basis, the demand under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held unsustainable and relief was granted to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether differential duty could be demanded on clearances made on 10-3-1994 merely because the revised classification list claiming exemption was filed on 11-3-1994, when the assessee was otherwise eligible for exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E.

Analysis: The demand was founded only on the premise that the revised classification list could not be given retrospective effect. The exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was available on the date of clearance, and the clearances had not crossed the relevant turnover limit. In computing differential duty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the availability of exemption to the assessee on the date of removal is material, and the filing of the classification list is only procedural.

Conclusion: The demand of differential duty was not sustainable, and the assessee was entitled to relief.

---