2005 (2) TMI 615

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Raman, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J) (Oral)]. -  The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of 'measuring instruments' including Infra-red Pyrometer. They were availing the benefit of Notification No. 79/90-C.E., dated 20-3-1990 in respect of Infra-red Pyrometer and accordingly paying duty @ 5% based on the approved classification of the goods....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fication No. 79/90-C.E., ibid. The department issued a show-cause notice denying the benefit of the Notification to the assessee on the goods reclassified under SH 9025.00 and demanding duty for a prior period. Contesting this demand, the assessee maintained that when the reclassification was prospective, there could be no retrospective demand. This argument was rejected by the adjudicating author....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. Reiterating the grounds of this appeal, learned JDR submits that the decision in Rainbow Industries (supra) was overruled by a bench of three Judges of the Supreme Court in Ballarpur Industries Ltd. v. Asst. Collector of Customs & Central Excise, 1995 (76) E.L.T. 499 (SC). Ld. DR further submits that, with the retrospective amendment of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act by Finance Act....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....herein it was held that the above amendment made with retrospective effect from 17-11-1980 was applicable to all pending proceedings and that the decision of the Constitution Bench of the court in Collector v. Cotspun Ltd:, 1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) (holding that Rainbow Industries (supra) had correctly laid down the law on the point) was no longer good law. This legal position was reiterated b....