TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (6) TMI 641
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Venkatraman, Senior Advocate and Shri Muthurvenkatraman, Advocate for the respondent. 3. As per the facts on record, the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Ht circuit breakers of various types. During the relevant period, they were discharging duty on the said goods @ 5% in terms of Notification No.52/93-CE dt. 28.2.93 by classifying the same under Heading 8535.00. They were issued three SCNs, detailed below, raising demands of duties on the allegation that the goods were not classifiable under Heading 8535.00 but the same are properly classifiable under Heading 85.37 and as such the benefit of Notification was not available to them :- S.No. SCN Date Period Duty (Rs.) 1. 1.3.1994 1.3.93 to 31.12.93 1,51,95,379 2. 13.4.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of Southern Switch Gear Ltd. Vs CCE Chennai- 2003 (155) ELT 145 (Tri.-Chennai) laying down that Board s circular dt. 14.7.94 classifying the goods under Heading 8537 would have only prospective effect and, therefore, classification of the product has to be adopted under Heading 8537.00 only from 14.7.94, confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.37,611/- for the period 14.7.94 to 31.7.94. 8. Revenue is in appeal against the above order on the ground that the demand raised against the respondents should have been confirmed for the entire period Jan 93 to July 94 inasmuch as subsequent to passing of the order by the Tribunal vide which matters were remanded, vide Section 110 of Finance Act 2000 provisions of Section 11A were amended retrospecti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Commissioner, confirming the demand for the period 14.7.94 to 31.7.94 only. 10. We have appreciated the submissions made by both sides. The present impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner in de novo proceedings, when the matter was earlier remanded by the Tribunal vide their order reported as 2003 (160) ELT 555 (Tri.-Chennai). On going through the said order of the Tribunal, we find that originally there was difference of opinion between the Members and the matter was referred to third Member. As per the majority order, the matters were remanded with the direction to restrict the demand to a period of 6 monthly only. For proper appreciation, we reproduce the relevant paragraphs from the order of Member (Technical) who first....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E.L.T. 908. Further in the case of Fricks India Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 676, the Bench presided over by Justice K. Sreedharan, Ex-President has held that if the goods are cleared pursuant to approval of the classification list it is not open to the department to justify demand of duty invoking the longer period of limitation in terms of Section 11A. 19. In view of the above discussion, I agree? with the view taken by learned Member (T) Shri S.S. Sekhon that the appeal is required to be remanded for re-determination of the classification issue and the demand of duty has to be restricted to six months period only. Final Majority order recorded is as under :- In terms of majority order, the appeal is allowed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....advances the Revenue s case inasmuch as the adjudicating authority was bound to follow the directions of the Tribunal, in the present case, which, in clear terms, held that the demand of duty is required to be fixed for a period of 6 months. 13. Similarly, arguments made by learned Senior advocate to seek support from the Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of HM Bags etc. cannot further his case inasmuch as, we are not deciding the appeal for the first time in the present proceedings. The appeal already stands decided by the earlier order of the Tribunal. Ld. Advocate fairly agrees that the earlier order of the Tribunal, directing confirmation of demand for six months, was not appealed against by them before any higher appellate fo....