TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (5) TMI 230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of iron and steel if made out of duty paid semi-finished steel material. 3. According to the appellant, they have been manufacturing number of products at the said factory under AL-4 Licence which they held since 9-12-1968, but when sometime in 1976, an application was made, in the usual course, for renewal of the aforesaid licence, they were advised by the Assistant Collector, Jamshedpur vide his letter dated 16-2-1976 that although the licence in question had been renewed as requested by the Company, no licence was required as this Agrico Unit of the Company was exempt from having a licence as it was producing only forged products. It is averred that the company still wanted to be very clear and they again approached the Assistant Collector to grant them personal hearing as they felt that notwithstanding the fact that their products were exempt from duty, it was necessary to have their licence renewed but the Assistant Collector, Central Excise again by his letter dated 19-3-1977 so informed them that in view of Notification No. 31/76-C.E., dated 28-2-1976, iron and steel products which were exempt from payment of whole of the excise duty, were also exempt from the operati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cs and coal-cutting picks were treated as falling under T.I. 26AA of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and that their classification list filed by them had been approved in his regard and that there was no reason why simply because T.I. 68 came into force, their products should cease to be falling under Tariff Heading 26AA. It was further pleaded that the Assistant Collector had not passed any speaking order, inasmuch as whereas in respect of hammers, he held that they were forged products, covered by T.I. 26AA, as regards `coal-cutting picks' and `harrow discs', he simply said that they fell under T.I. 68, without assigning any reasons. They also annexed copies of the R.T. 12 Returns, pertaining to the period before March 1975 in support of their plea that hammers and coal cutting picks have been described as forged products, falling under Tariff Entry No. 26AA. They also pleaded, in the alternative, that even if assuming, though, not admitting, that harrow discs fell under T.I. 68, they were otherwise exempt from payment of duty being agricultural implements, and further that the demand made by the Central Excise authorities by means of show cause notice was barr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en and clear so much so, that they in spite of being told that no licence was required, had sought a further clarification, expressing the view that in spite of the exemption, renewal of the licence was necessary, but the Assistant Collector in categorical terms told them again, that in view of the statutory notification, he could not extend Excise Control to those products, and consequently the same was withdrawn. She further contended that even the classification Lists had been filed and approved for this period regarding which now allegations are levelled that goods had been cleared without payment of excise duty, and that there being no clandestine removal in any case, provisions of Rule 9(2) would not apply, and that period of six months only was available under Rule 10, and that the notice to show cause having been given for the first time on 13-2-1978, the demand for the entire period covered by the show cause notice, namely 1-3-1975 to 17-6-1977 was not enforceable. These arguments were addressed without prejudice to her main contention that the goods manufactured at the factory, known as Agrico, were all forged products and classifiable under T.E. 26AA, and Classification ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith the revision petition (now appeal) also hows that this factory produces a large range and variety of implements primarily for agriculture and the main process is that of forging. There is also no controversion of the fact that the company has been filing classification lists throughout constantly showing all these products as forged products and the Department, till the time the show cause notice was issued, was accepting the said description and declaration, and processing the lists accordingly. We find that the Assistant Collector in fact has been intimating the appellants that their products squarely fell within the ambit of Exemption Notification No. 31/76 C.E., dated 28-2-1976 and went to the extent of telling them that he thought it to be a case where excise control had to be withdrawn and was being actually withdrawn. 11. In this setting of facts, it becomes incumbent upon the Revenue to give some cogent reasons for suddenly changing their view. The contention of the Appellants is supported by judicial authorities to the effect that although principles of Res Judicata may not apply to quasi judicial authorities but still the classification which has been accepted t....