CCE NEW DELHI II Vs. UNITRON LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order in appeal dated 24.11.94 passed by the Collector(Appeals) vide which he dismissed their appeal against the order in original dated 28/7/93 of the Assistant Collector who dropped duty demands of Rs.5,06,683.15, Rs.2,60,460.90 and Rs.5,162.44 in respect of the product, signal generator by classifying under Chapter Heading 9031.00 of the CETA and confirmed demand of only Rs.1,73,639.00 against the respondents.

(2.) THE respondents were engaged in the manufacture of test equipment and their components falling under Chapter Headings 90 and 85 of the CETA. They cleared the goods i.e. signal generator/audio oscillator under Chapter Heading 9050.00 of the CETA and paid duty at a concessional rate of 5% ad valorem by taking benefit of Notification No.46/88 dated 1.3.88. However, when this fact came to the notice of the audit party in the month of January 1991 that the goods cleared were classifiable under Chapter Heading 9031.00 of the CETA, the respondents filed classification list w.e.f. 23.1.91 andstarted paying duty at the full rate of 15% ad valorem under protest. The classification was found by the Revenue under Chapter Heading 8543.00 of the CETA. Thereafter, show cause notices were issued to them vide which differential duty was demanded as indicated in those notices from them for the period October 1990 to September 1992. After getting their reply to those show cause notices the Assistant Commissioner through order in original ordered the classification of the goods under Chapter Heading 9031.00 of the CETA but dropped the demands of Rs.5,06,683.15, Rs.28,240.85 and Rs.5,162.44 and confirmed the demand of only Rs.1,73,639.87 for the period 8.10.90 to 21.1.91.

(3.) THIS order in original of the Assistant Commissioner was challenged by the Revenue in appeal but the Commissioner(Appeals) dismissed their appeal through the impugned order by holding the same to be infructuous.