1983 (7) TMI 300

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ariff Item 34(3a) attracting duty at 10% ad valorem. The contention of the appellants is that the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Faridabad arbitrarily changed the classification of the same on 24-11-1975 to Tariff Item 34(4) (Motor Vehicles, not otherwise specified) attracting duty @ 15% ad valorem or ₹ 3,000/- per tractor whichever is higher. Shri C.L. Sawhney, on behalf of the appellants, further contended that the action of the Asstt. Collector was in violation of principles of natural justice since no show cause notice was issued, nor any opportunity of personal hearing was granted though the appellants sought for the same (In this context attention was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Madras High Court ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....79. The Appellate Collector upheld the order of the Asstt. Collector on the ground that once the Asstt. Collector had finalised the classification list, there was no question of granting any hearing to them and as regards the time bar, he observed that one year was available to the Department for raising the demand, as the Classification List was approved by the Asstt. Collector on 24-11-1975 and the show cause notice was issued on 24-6-1976. 3. Shri A.K. Jain, on behalf of the respondent, started his arguments by stating that the tariff advice given by the Board was not binding on the Asstt. Collector who was a quasi-judicial authority and hence he was not bound by that advice and the classification given by him was correct in law. H....