1997 (11) TMI 300

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e. By one of these orders dated 15-3-1991 the Asstt. Commissioner approved the classification list No. 1/90-91 with effect from 3-4-1990 and 2/90-91 with effect from same day rejecting the claim for exemption under Notification 175/1986 which was sought by the Appellants. By his order dated 27-5-1991, the Asstt. Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs. 6,91,658.82 which was raised on the basis of his order dated 15-3-1991. It is seen that the appellants were filing the classification list and on scrutiny thereof the Asstt. Commissioner noticed that they had not correctly computed the value of the clearances during the preceding financial year for the purpose of notification. They were manufacturers of gold potassium cyanide and in computing t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1991 amounting to Rs. 6,21,658.82 based on his earlier order approving the classification list by holding that they are ineligible for exemption under Notification 175/86. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld his orders leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal. Shri K.K. Shroff the ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the demand for duty raised by the show cause notices issued by the Supdt. in 1990 when their classification list itself was pending for approval by the Asstt. Commissioner is premature. He relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Samrat International v. Collector - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 561 (S.C.) = 1991 (33) ECR 19 wherein the Supreme Court held that where a unit is operating under self removal procedure ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....leared their converted product; the Department's case is that their eligibility to exemption under Notification 175/86 is to be considered only after adding the value of the gold. The ld. DR referred to and reiterated the reason given by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. 2. We have carefully considered these submissions. We find that applying the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in the Samrat International case supra, the show-cause-cum-demand notices issued by the Supdt. are premature because at the time when these notices were issued, in terms of law laid down by the Supreme Court, the classification list filed by the assessee was still pending approval and accordingly the assessments during the period of penden....