(1.) The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of "Busduct with flexibles", which was classified by them under Heading Nos. 85.37/85.38 of the CETA Schedule. Such classification had been approved by the jurisdictional Assistant Collector. Classification lists No. 143/92 -93, dated 28 -5 -1992 and No. 165/92 -93, dated 1 -6 -1992 filed by the assessee claiming classification of the goods as above were the last in the series of classification lists so approved by the Assistant Collector. Subsequently, CBEC issued an order under Section 37B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 classifying the above goods under Heading No. 85.44. Pursuant to this revised classification, the Department issued a show cause notice demanding duty on "Busduct with flexibles" cleared by the assessee during the period January to June, 1992. This demand was confirmed by the Assistant Collector. The aggrieved party preferred appeal to the Collector (Appeals), contending that the re -classification of the goods could not have any retrospective effect and, therefore, the demand of duty for the past period was not sustainable. They relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Rainbow Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara . Their argument was sustained by the appellate authority and accordingly the demand of duty for the past period was set aside. Hence the present appeal of the Revenue.
(2.) Ld. SDR has submitted that the decision in Rainbow Industries (Supra) was overruled by the Apex Court in the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise holding that any duty short -levied on the basis of approved classification list was recoverable on the basis of revised classification for a period prior to the issuance of show cause notice subject to the time limit prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Ld. SDR has also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in ITW Signode India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise .
(3.) The respondents were not represented before us despite notice, nor was there any application of theirs for adjournment of hearing.