DURGA WORKS Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a manufacturer of aluminium niter housing castings out of aluminium alloy ingots supplied to THEm by M/s. Motor industries company Ltd., Hosur road, Bangalore. On 28-11-1986 THE petitioner filed a classification list classifying aluminium filter housing castings under tariff sub-heading 7611.00 of THE central excise tariff act 1985 (THE act). By virtue of THE notification No.l82/84-ce, dated 1-8-1984, as amended by THE notification No. 79/1986 ce, dated 10-2-1986 THE excise duty on THE said item was exempt. In regard to THE classification list filed on 28- 11-1986 (Annexure-A), respondent-1 issued a show cause notice on 7-5-1987, as per annexure-'c' proposing to classify THE goods under tariff sub-heading 8421.00 and also to levy THE appropriate duty THEreon. The show cause notice culminated in an order of adjudication dated 14-12-1987 made by THE respondent, as per Annexure-D , and THE show cause notice was confirmed. Against this Order, THE petitioner went up in appeal before THE collector of central excise (appeals), Madras, who, by his order dated 30-6-1988 (Annexure-E), dismissed THE appeal and confirmed THE classification under 8421. Against THE said order of THE appellate collector, THE petitioner has filed an appeal before THE cegat and THE appeal is pending. When THE matter stood at this stage, a notice of demand dated 17-8-1988 (Annexure-F) was issued by THE superintendent of central excise (Annexure-F) calling upon THE petitioner to pay differential duty of Rs. 96,665.04/- for THE period november, 1986 to february, 1987. This demand was made pursuant to THE dismissal of THE appeal of THE petitioner by THE collector of appeals. This demand is challenged in this writ petition. The main ground urged on behalf of THE petitioner by Sri Chanderkumar is: that THE demand made by respondent - 2 is unsustainable in law since THE demand is not preceded by issue of a notice as contemplated under Section 11-a of THE central Excise Act. He has relied upon two decisions of THE Supreme Court in support of this contention: