TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (3) TMI 269
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 68 or Item 22F of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff; and (ii) The demand for differential duty under Item 22F and Item 68 can be demanded under Section 11A for a period of six months prior to the issue of the show cause notice dated 20-5-1983. 2. The facts of the case have been stated in the statement of facts given in the memorandum of appeal filed by the Revenue. In short, the same are as follows :- (a) The respondents filed classification list in Form I dated 25-9-1975 to the proper officer for classification of the above mentioned three products under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The classification list was approved by the proper officer and the respondents cleared the goods on payment of duty under the said Tariff ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assifiable under Tariff Item 68 and Indurated Asbestos was classifiable under Tariff Item 22F (2). He also held that the re-classification of Indurated Asbestos should be effected from 11-10-1983, the date of the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. The Collector (Appeals) modified the order of the Assistant Collector to the above effect. The Revenue has challenged the impugned order-in-appeal of the Collector (Appeals) in the appeal under consideration before us. The Revenue has contended in the grounds of appeal that the order of the Collector (Appeals) is not tenable inasmuch as the Tariff Item No. 22F (4) lays down that "other manufactures (of Mineral fibre) in which mineral fibres or yarn or both predominate or predomina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for six months prior to 20-5-1983. To be more specific, he has argued that the demand for duty is sustainable for the period from 20-11-1982 to 20-5-1983 in terms of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. However, the period covered in the show cause notice was from May, 1978 to April, 1983. In support of his arguments Shri Chakravarti has relied on the following judgments :- (a) 1988 (35) E.L.T. 605 (S.C.) in the case of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others (Paragraph 7 thereof). (b) 1989 (40) E.L.T. 214 (S.C.) in the case of Jaishri Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, (Paragraph-10 of the judgment). (c) 1988 (36) E.L.T. 346 (Tribunal) in the case of Collector of Central Exci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. We have considered the records of the case and the arguments of both sides. In the impugned order the Collector (Appeals) has given specific findings that "There is no dispute that all these products are made of Asbestos material. But examination of the samples of the products in dispute clearly shows that the products Sleeve Packings and Hexagonal Packing Rings are component parts of an instrument/machinery. According to the write-up given by the appellants Sleeve Packing is used as Gland Packing for Water Guages manufactured by them and Hexagonal Packing Rings are used for Gland Packing for Water Guages manufactured by them. These two products are clearly identifiable as parts/components of Water Guages. Even if they contain Asbest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llector (Appeals) has upheld the classification under Tariff Item 22F as the product is in the form of Fibres (and not component parts of instruments/machinery). We do not find any mistake in this classification. The respondents have also not challenged the order of the Collector (Appeals) so far as Indurated Asbestos is concerned. 7. On the question of limitation, prayer of the Revenue in paragraph-6 of the Appeal Memorandum is that "the demand for differential duty under Section 11A is valid for the period reckoned backward for 6 months from 20-5-83, the date of issue of the Show Cause Notice to the said Company". The learned Departmental Representative has also reiterated the same prayer during the time of hearing before us. He has ci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of suppression or mis-statement of facts etc. Therefore, following this judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we uphold the demand for differential duty for a period of six months prior to the issue of the show cause notice on 20-5-1983. 8. The learned Departmental Representative has relied on paragraph-10 of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Jaishri Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 214 (S.C.). In the said paragraph of the judgment it was stated that the appellant therein was buying and selling the products as nuts but they described the goods as end fittings in the declaration given to the Department. From the conduct of the appellant suppression was established in the said....