ATLANTA SYSTEMS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue raised in this appeal is about the correct classification of STD/PCO Monitors. The appellant had classified the goods under Tariff Heading 90.20 of the Central Excise Tariff and cleared the goods on payment of duty at the rate as applicable under that Heading. This classification was based on Circular, dated 24 -1 -1994 of the Central Board of Excise & Customs. Subsequently, under another order, dated 5 -4 -1999, the Board held the classification of the goods to be under Chapter 84.70. Based on the later Circular, differential duty demands were raised for a period of six months by the jurisdictional authorities.

(2.) THE contention in the present appeal is that, since the original payment of duty was in terms of a Circular of the Board, the Revenue is bound by the Circular and no proceedings could be initiated. The learned Counsel for the appellants has also submitted that this issue remains settled in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Meerut v. PEP Infotech Ltd., 2001 (127) E.L.T. 149 (T).

(3.) WE have perused the records and heard both sides. The binding nature of a Circular of the Board remains well settled by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemical Indus., 2002 (139) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.).