TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 98
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....manufacture of hermetic motors in 1964/1965. They were issued a licence for such manufacture. The licence was renewed from time to time. There are two main parts of this motor, namely, stators and rotors. The hermetic motors manufactured by the petitioners are, in turn, used as component of compressors. The compressors in their turn are used in refrigerators or in air conditioning systems. 4 For the period 1964-1965 to 28th February, 1986, the petitioners filed various classification lists classifying the above stators and rotors cleared together under Item 30(c) and stators or rotors cleared individually under Item 30(d) of the erstwhile First Schedule to the Act. These classifications lists have been approved by the Excise Department. It is common ground that The Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, was introduced on 1st March, 1986. Thereupon the company filed fresh classification list classifying stators and rotors when cleared together under sub-heading 8501.00 and when cleared individually under subheading 8503.00. The classification lists from 1st March, 1986, to 29th February, 1989, have been finally approved. On 11th January, 1989, the second respondent purported to issue a s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....66/1986. 10 This writ petition was entertained directly against the impugned order passed on the show cause notices by over-ruling the Revenue's objections that there is a remedy available to the petitioners to challenge this order in appeal. 11 The writ petition was admitted on the ground that for a period of 25 years stators and motors have been classified and charged to duty as electric motors when cleared together and as parts of electric motors when cleared separately. That long standing practice is sought to be changed and retrospectively although the clarificatory circular prohibits this exercise. 12 The only submission raised before us by Mr. Hidayatullah, learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order is based on the 13th December, 1989, clarification. That is clearly prospective. When the show cause notice was issued that clarification was not issued by the Board. Therefore, relying upon this subsequent clarification a prior demand and raised in the two show cause notices could not have been confirmed. It is, therefore, his submission that the first show notice is dated 11th January, 1989. The second show cause notice is dated 12th Apr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that it was not possible in the absence of detailed technical information of each of the parts or accessories to provide comprehensive rulings on the classification of each of the products, nevertheless the guidelines as emerging from these circular were issued. Annexures A and B to this circular are relevant for our purpose. They are referable to paragraph 3 of the said circular. Annexure-A contains list of parts and accessories of air-conditioning or refrigerating machinery or appliances and machinery for treatment of materials by a process involving a change of temperature which are classifiable under the headings 8415.00, 8418.00 or 8419.00 of the central excise tariff. The clear clarification and emerging from a reading of Sr. Nos.11 and 47 is that stators and rotors and named specifically as description of the product is classifiable under sub-heading 8503.00. Then comes another departmental clarification and which is based on the above. That comes on 1st March, 1988, but does not alter the position. What we have found is that on the date of issuance of the show cause notice, this was the position regarding classification of stators and rotors. 16 On 13th December, 1989, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(supra). Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to all its earlier views, held as under : "2. ... ... ... ... ... .... ... ... ... The appellant also submits that with effect from the said date the appellant is classifying its products in terms of Circular No.6/89 dated 16-1-1989. However, it is contended that in view of the fact that prior to issuance of the said Circular dated 16-1-1989, Circular No.4/85 being in force, the appellant's products are liable to be classified for duty under Chapter 49 of the Act. It was also contended that these Circulars being binding on the Department, they are bound in law to comply with the same and the show cause-cum-demand notices issued by the authorities being contrary to the relevant Circulars in force, the said notices/demands are liable to be quashed. On behalf of the Union, it is contended that though the Circulars in question are binding on the Department, they are not binding on the adjudicating authorities, therefore, it was open to the tribunal to have independently considered the case and having done so correctly, the appellant's appeals before us are devoid of any merit." 17 Even the latter judgment in t....