SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy herein relates to the demand raised by the respondents with respect to the difference of duty arising from the final classification order dated 28.11.1989. It is necessary to state a few facts.

(2.) The petitioner produces, inter alia, Lypholiser and vacuum plant. A question arose whether they constitute refrigerating machinery and air-conditioning parts and, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of exemption notification No. 155/86. The petitioner's case was that they do not constitute refrigeration and air-conditioning parts and, therefore, entitled to the benefit of exemption notification. He submitted two classification lists--one with effect from 1.3.88 and the other with effect from 1.4.88. These two lists were approved provisionally on 1.1.89 and 21.7.89 respectively under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules subject to the petitioner's following and complying with the procedure prescribed thereunder. Subsequently, on 28.11.89, final classification order was passed which is adverse to the petitioner. As a result of the said order dated 28.11.89, the petitioner become liable to pay the duty which was demanded from him by the Superintendent's letter dated 14.1.91. The petitioner failed to deposit the difference amount whereupon the show cause notice dated 24.5.91 was issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise purporting to demand the said difference of duty under Section 11A of the Act. Under this notice, duty for the period 1.3.88 to 31.3.89 is demanded.

(3.) The contention raised in this writ petition is that the notice in question has been issued by the Superintendent and, if so, he cannot demand duty for a period more man six months preceding the notice. It is, therefore, said to be incompetent for the period beyond six months.