TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (12) TMI 347
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....printed". Classification was claimed under Tariff heading No. 48.11 and Sub-Heading 4811.30. They also claimed the benefit of Notification No. 116/89, dated 27-4-1989. The classification list was effective from 20-3-1990 and it was approved on 24-8-1990. Later on, a show cause notice was issued asking the appellants herein to show cause as to why the duty of Rs. 85,978.05 for the period from April, 1990 to September, 1990 be not demanded from them inasmuch as they did not give out the fact that they had cleared two types of Poly-coated Paper, one in Roll-form and the other in Sheet-form, in their classification list. 1.2. On adjudication, the said duty was confirmed. The appellant firm did not succeed before the lower appellates aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in sheets, the sheeting process is undertaken by a job worker to whom the polycoated rolls are sent for sheeting under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules. 3. Learned Advocate has submitted that having regard to the aforesaid process of manufacture, since they have only polycoated roll-form of paper and polycoated the sheets, therefore, the proviso to Notification No. 116/89 would not be applicable in the case of their product and hence they cannot be denied the benefit of the said Notification (as amended). He also raises a plea of limitation that the demand has been raised even after the classification list had been approved right since 1989. He, therefore, submits that demand of duty can only be prospective and not retrospe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred from raising it against them even though there might have been an earlier approved classification, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Elson Machine v. C.C.E. reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 571 (SC). 7. He also points out that these proceedings relate to the classification list filed in March, 1990 effective from 1-4-1990. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions made from both sides. The Department seeks to deny the benefit of the Notification No. 116/89-CE, dated 27-4-1989 to the appellants herein on the ground that the Explanation given in the said Notification covers them. In order to appreciate this reasoning, we reproduce below the Explanation to the said Notification: "Explanation. - Nothing containe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. The Explanation, in our view, does not refer to the process of manufacture by polycoating in sheet-form or roll-form at all. Therefore, neither the appellants' contention nor the finding of the authorities below is correct on that aspect. What we have to see is that whether a sheet of paper covered with plastic has been cleared from the firm or not. This is not denied by the appellants as mentioned by themselves in para 2 of their statement of facts which we have reproduced above by describing the process of manufacture. We, therefore, hold that the benefit of Notification No. 116/89-CE would not be applicable to the product as mentioned above. 12. On the question of time-bar also, we do not find much force in the plea of the lea....