2004 (5) TMI 378

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... confirmation of duty demand against them. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of goods known as 'Plastic Satranj', besides other plastic articles. They in their Classification List No. 63/86 classified this product under Charter sub-heading 3922.90 of the CETA and claimed full exception of payment of duty in respect thereof in terms of Notification No. 132/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. The Asstt. Collector approved their classification list accordingly. But later on, when there was a restructuring of this sub-heading of Chapter 39 w.e.f. 10-2-1987, the appellants filed another Classification List No. 202/87 wherein they again claimed classification under Chapter 39 with exemption to pay du....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....roduct in question as well as cum-duty price principle. To substantiate all these contentions, he has placed reliance on the ratio of the law laid down in the case of : (a) H.M. Bags Manufacturers v. CCE - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.); (b) Bharat Wagon & Engg. v. C.C.E., Patna - 2001 (131) E.L.T. 681 (T) = 2001 (44) RLT 557; (c) C.C.E., Delhi v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. - 2002 (141) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.); and (d) Camlin Ltd. v. C.C.E., Mumbai - 2001 (134) E.L.T. 10 (S.C.). 4. On the other hand, the learned SDR, has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. 5. So far as the contention of the learned Counsel, that the change in the classification of the product in question from Chapters 39 to 46, should be made....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n classification should be made effective, cannot be accepted. The classification of the product in question of the appellants even before the issuance of this Circular already stood covered under sub-heading 4601.00 of Chapter 46 of the CETA. 6. It is not a case where the correct classification of the product in question of the appellants had been done, for the first time on the basis of Board's Circular dated 16-6-1987 and as such could not be given retrospective effect. The classification list dated 10-2-1987 of the appellants was approved provisionally on 30-3-1987 and that too under Chapter 46. Therefore, the ratio of the law laid down in the case of H.M. Bags Manufacturer v. CCE, supra, wherein it has been observed that demand....