GURU OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. Vs. CCE, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Guru Overseas Pvt. Ltd., is regarding classification of seat covers under the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA).

(2.) Shri Jasbir Singh, Managing Director of the Appellant company, submitted that they manufacture car seat covers (leather and non -leather); that initially in 1986 and 1987, these goods were classified by them and approved by the Department under Heading 87.08 of CETA; that however, in 1988 as per verbal instruction of the Assistant Collector, they submitted a revised classification list under covering letter dated 26.7.98 classifying leather car seat covers under Sub -heading 4201.90 and textiles car seat covers under Sub -heading 6301.00 of CETA; that on the suggestion of their customer, M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., they requested the Assistant Collector on 30.9.88 to change the classification of car seat covers under Heading 87.08 which was rejected under letter dated 26.10.1988; that in subsequent years form March, 1989 to 1992, they filed the classification lists accordingly which were duly approved by the Department granting them exemption under Notification No. 279/88 -CE dated 16.11.1988 (in respect of leather car seat covers) and Notification No. 65/87 -CE dated 1.3.1987 (in respect of textile car seat covers). He, further, submitted that the Assistant Collector, under Order No. 145/93 dated 9.12.93 classified the impugned products under Heading 94.01 with effect from 1.4.93 which was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals); that on their appeal, the Appellate Tribunal, vide Final Order NO. 39/2000 -D dated 4.1.2000 classified the impugned goods under Heading 87.08 which was subsequently also accepted by the Central Board of excise and Customs under Circular No. 541/37/20 -CX dated 6.8.2000. He mentioned that they had cleared 5 sets of leather car seat covers on 16.3.92 availing exemption under Notification No. 279/88 -CE; that Department demanded duty by issuing the product under Heading 94.01 of CETA; that the Assistant Commissioner under Adjudication Order No. 285/98 dated 18.9.98 classified the car seat covers under Heading 94.01 and confirmed demand of duty amounting to Rs. 9128/ -; that the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned Order, following the Tribunal's decision, in their own case, classified the impugned goods under Heading 87.08 CETA and directed the Assistant Commissioner to rework out the demand of duty after adjusting Modvat Credit, if any. He contended that they had cleared the goods in accordance with the approved classification list; that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in CCE vs. Cotspun Ltd., 1999 (113) ELT 353 (SC), differential duty cannot be recovered on the ground of short levy when duty cannot be recovered on the ground of short levy when duty cannot be recovered on the ground of short levy when duty was levied on the basis of the approved classification list; that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have decided the classification of leather car seat covers either under Heading 94.01 or Sub -heading 4201.90 which were in dispute and not under a new heading 87.08.

(3.) Countering the arguments, Shri Sheo Narayan Singh, learned SDR, submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has classified the impugned product under Heading 87.08 following the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in their own case against which no appeal has been filed by the Appellants and has maintained judicial discipline as directed by the Supreme Court in UOI vs. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., 1991 (55) ELT 433. He finally submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000, demand can be raised for past six months period even if the classification list has been approved.