COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. SUCHITRA COMPONENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in this Appeal, filed by Revenue is whether the demand can be raised for past six months in respect of excisable goods cleared on the basis of classification list approved by the competent officer.

(2.) MRS . Krishna A. Mishra, learned Senior Departmental Representative, mentioned that M/s. Suchitra Components manufactured "Fly Back Transformers' which were classified by them in their classification list under Heading 85.29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act which was approved by the Assistant Commissioner on 30.4.1990; that subsequently a show cause notice dated 29.8.90 was issued to the Respondents for demanding the differential duty as the impugned goods were classifiable under Heading 85.04 of the Tariff in terms of Board's Circular No. -CX 4 dated 9.7.1990; that the Assistant Commissioner, under Order -in -Original No. 7/91 dated 11.11.1990, classified the impugned goods under Heading No. 85.04 and confirmed the demand of differential Central Excise duty for the period from 1.3.1990 to 29.8.90; that Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order set aside the demand of duty and ordered that the changed classification would be effective from 29.8.90 i.e. from the date of issue of the show cause notice; that the Tribunal also, vide Final Order No. 367/2000 -B dated 8.3.2000 rejected the Appeal following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Baroda v. Cotspun Ltd., 2000 (69) ECC 451 (SC) : : 1999 (113) ELT 353 (SC). She, further, mentioned that on Appeal, the Supreme Court in the judgment dated 13.1.2003 in the case of Easland Combines, Coimbatore v. CCE, Coimbatore, 2003 (85) ECC 496 (SC) has remitted the matter to the Tribunal for deciding the question of classification and other issue.

(3.) SHRI A. R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Respondents are not challenging the classification of the impugned goods under Heading No. 85.04 of the Tariff. He, however, relied upon the decision in the case of Arvind Chemi Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE Delhi III, : 2004 (164) ELT 209 (T) wherein the Tribunal has held that "Board's Circular issued under Section 37B, would be effective from the date of its notification for publication and no demand of duty for the period prior to that date, can be raised." Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of Eswaran & Sons Engineers Ltd. v. CCE, Madras, : 1999 (112) ELT 1011 (T). He contended that as the Board's Circular classifying the impugned goods under Heading 85.04 was issued on 9.7.90, the demand of duty cannot be confirmed for the period prior to 9.7.90.