TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (1) TMI 173
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n was changed to T.I. 68 and duty was paid under that item. As per Tariff Advice No. 123/81, dated 16.11.1981, industrial laminated sheets were classified under Tariff Item 15A(2) instead of Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants continued to pay duty under T.I. 68 till 28.12.1981. There was no clearance during the period from 28.12.1981 to 31.12.1981. On 5.2.1982, the Superintendent of Central Excise issued a Show Cause Notice demanding duty under Item 15A(2) of the Tariff for the period from 16.11.1981 to 31.12.1981. The appellants contended that duty for the period from 16.11.1981 to 28.12.1981 could not be charged under Item 15A(2) as the Tariff Advice was communicated to them on 28.12.1981. This contention was not accepte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Yantrashal Vanker Sahakari Mandali Ltd. v. Union of India and others. Shri Koruthu has further stated that in case the Tribunal does not allow the appeal, then the valuation of the goods should be at the reduced rate after deducting the amount of duty. 3. Shri Shishir Kumar for the respondent has. argued that the classification is not challenged by the appellants. Demand for duty could be raised under Section 11 A of the Central Excises and Salt Act within six months. Demand was raised within six months. The Assistant Collector applied his mind before confirming the demand. Hence, the Tariff Advice is not relevant in this case. 4. We have considered the arguments and the records placed before us. The learned Counsel for the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs and that according to the advice and opinion given by the said Ministry the aforesaid bottling Companies could not be treated as independent manufacturers. The Central Government asked the Collectors to examine the issue in terms of the opinion of the Ministry of Law. Thereafter, show cause notices were issued to all the bottling companies by the Assistant Collectors of Central Excise. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the basis of the show cause notice was the direction issued by the Central Government. There was non-application of mind on the part of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise in as much as the show cause notices were issued to the bottling companies as well as to M/s. Parl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2327), the facts of the case were that by Notification dated 1.3.1961 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, the Central Government granted partial exemption of Central Excise duty on Shoddy Yarn. By a Trade Notice No. 39/Woollen-Yarn-2/65, dated 21.5.1965, the Collector of Central Excise laid down that for the purpose of assessment and clearance, shoddy yarn must conform to the following specifications :- "(i) It should be spun out of shoddy wool, i.e. wool retrieved from woollen rags, cuttings etc. (ii) It should contain not less that 80% of wool fibres. (iii) A telerance upto 20% of non-wool fibres, namely other textile fibres like rayon, art silk, silk cotton etc. including the admixture of virgin wool not exceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be protected against any executive direction as to how the assessment is to be made which is not sanctioned by the legislative provision." 8. In the case before us, paragraph 1 of the show cause notice dated 5.2.1982 reads as follows : "Whereas it appears that M/s. Wood Polymer Limited, Bilimora have contravened Rule 173(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in as much as they have manufactured Industrial laminated Sheets falling under T. I. No. 68, whereas as per the Tariff Advice No. 123/81, dated 16.11.1981 the Industrial Laminates (Other than WP3 and WP4) are classified under Tariff Item No. 15A(2) instead of Tariff Item No. 68. Thus, the differential of Central Excise duty levi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the demand of differential duty should commence from 28.12.1981, the date when Tariff Advice was communicated to the appellants. The show cause notice has been reproduced in para 8 of this order. Except a casual reference to Section 11A (or Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944), it has none of the ingredients of the section set out therein. It does not even say that duty of excise has been short-levied or short-paid. It only refers to Tariff Advice No. 123/81 dated 16.11.1981 and it states that under this Advice industrial laminates (other than WP 3 and WP 4 are classified under Tariff Item 15A(2) instead of Tariff Item 68. Now a Tariff Advice, from the decisions cited by Shri Koruthu, cannot be the basis of classification in quasi-ju....