TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (3) TMI 191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and is being disposed of as such. 2. The controversy arose when the appellant received communication from the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Thane, Bombay, firstly dated 9-6-1978 informing that their products, such as insulating tapes, fibre glass reinforcement grinding wheels, discs, etc. were classifiable under Tariff Entry 22F of the CET and requiring them to obtain L4 licence accordingly. This communication was followed by another order dated 21/22-6-1978 whereby the Assistant Collector intimated to the appellant that all their products (eleven in number), had been classified under Item 22F of the CET and they were required to pay differential duty accordingly, although ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....weep, all manufactures of mineral glass fibre, irrespective of the percentage thereof. He accordingly dismissed the appeal. 3. The present appeal is directed against this order, and the contentions put forward by the appellant as contained in the grounds of appeal, are to the effect that the view taken by the Assistant Collector as well as Appellate Collector was irrational and unwarranted. They pleaded that although the matter related to the classification list for the year 1978, but by the time the Appellate Collector came to decide the matter, the amendment providing the test of "pre-dominance" had already come into being and that the Appellate Collector ought to have taken notice thereof, as this was being clear indication of the int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. However, on the date of hearing, when Shri D.N. Kohli appeared for the appellant and his attention was drawn to the plea as to violation of principles of natural justice, he categorically stated that he wanted the matter to be decided on merits and did not press the plea for de novo adjudication with reference to principles of natural justice. 6. The matter was accordingly heard when Shri D.N. Kohli, Consultant addressed detailed arguments for the appellant and the respondent was represented by Shri K.D. Tayal, Senior Departmental Representative. Shri Kohli reiterated the arguments that the products manufactured by the appellant company were of different varieties; the common factor being only that they were all reinforcements of fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r thereto have been continued to be held liable to excise duty under Item 22F(iv). He accordingly pleaded that it was a clear case where a uniform classification was called for and in view of the action of the Excise authorities themselves subsequently, in rectifying the classification, the goods of date prior thereof be also held to be not covered by Tariff Entry 22F. 7. Shri K.D. Tayal controverted these arguments and urged that the amendment referred to by the learned Consultant, the Trade Notice and the later order of the Assistant Collector were all pertaining to the dates subsequent to the date of the classification list in dispute and that in view of the clear wording of Explanation (iv) of Tariff Entry 22-F, there was no escape. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the amending clause, there is no deeming provision that what was being said by way of amendment was, by any process of intendment, to be taken as having been always impliedly there. The result may be inequitous, that as contended by the appellant, the same type of goods were being classified under different headings, but the amendments are brought in only to remove the inequities and unless they are given a retrospective operation it cannot be said by process of inference that the period prior to the amendment ought also to be covered. The trade notices which are only by way of clarification of position, also take effect by way of guidelines for the concerned authorities from the date of issuance thereof and cannot override the plain wordin....