2013 (3) TMI 283

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is right in holding that the duty demand on circuit breakers with control panels is liable to be confirmed for the period prior to the issuance of the CBEC Circular dated 14.07.1994? 2. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in not following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M.Bags Manufacturing Co. Vs. Commissioner reported at 1997 (94) ELT 3 (SC) and followed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Southern Switch Gear Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai reported at 2003 (155) ELT 145 (Tri.-Chennai) wherein it held that the CBEC Circular dated 14.07.1994 is applicable prospectively from the date of the issue of the Circular i.e. from 14.07.1994? 2. The assessee is engaged in the manufactu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1A(1) was not invokable in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner for re-determination of the classification issue and with a further direction to make the demand of duty by restricting it for six months period only. The Commissioner, thereafter, passed the final order on 31.05.2002 by holding that the circuit breakers with control panels are to be classified under heading 8537 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 in terms of CBEC Circular No.32/8/94-CX dated 14.07.1994 under Section 37 B of the Act. Accordingly, by relying on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of H.M. Bags Manufacturer Vs. Collector of Central Excise (cited supra), the Commissioner held that the c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nue submitted that the said decision of the Honourable Supreme Court cannot be applied to the case of the assessee in view of the fact that earlier appeals decided by the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal, confirming the demand of duty for six months, were not appealed against by the assessee and therefore, when those orders have become final, the assessee cannot be permitted to rely on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court to contend that the demand can be made prospectively from the date of such Notification. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the assessee as well as the Revenue. 6. The issue involved in this case is as to whether the Revenue is entitled to make demand under Section 11A of the Central Excis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n is reinforced by use of the word "henceforth" by the Board. The Board's order excluded the intention of making the same effective from any earlier date. This submission of learned counsel for the appellant has, therefore, to be accepted." 7. Thus, from the reading of the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court, it is seen that a demand under Section 11A of the Act cannot be raised for any date prior to the date of the Board circular and the time limit as provided under Section 11A of the Act is not available to the Department. Thus it is manifestly clear from the above decision rendered by the Honourable Apex Court that once reclassification Notification is issued, the Revenue cannot invoke Section 11A of the Act to make dema....