UNITRON LIMITED Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Unitron Ltd., is whether Signal Generator manufacture by them is classifiable under Heading No. 90.30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by them or under Heading 85.43 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order and whether the extended period of limitation in invokable for demanding the duty.

(2.) SHRI Y. Kumar, learned Advocate, submitted that they had cleared Signal Generators classifying the same under Heading 90.30; that on an objection raised by the audit they classified the impugned produce under heading 90.31 and started paying duty under protest; that a show cause notice dated 15.4.91 was issued for demanding Central Excise duty for the period 8.10.90 to 21.1.92; that another show cause notice dated 23.1.92 was issued proposing classification of the impugned product under Heading 84.43 instead of 90.31 which was followed by another show cause notice dated 31.3.92 demanding duty for the period July, 1991 to December, 1991; that corrigendum dated 2.4.92 was issued in respect of show cause notice dated 15.4.91 by proposing classification under heading 85.43 and the differential duty was changed from Rs. 1,73,639/ - to Rs. 2,60,460/ -; that the Asstt. Commissioner vide Order -in -original dated 16.12.1992 classified the impugned product under heading 85.43 and confirmed the demand raised under both the show cause notices; that on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals), under Order -in -appeal dated 24.6.93, remanded the matters for afresh adjudication; that in the meantime 2 more show cause notices were issued for demanding duty; that the Asstt. Commissioner under the Order -in -Original No. 59/93 dated 28.3.97 classified the product under Heading 90.31 and dropped certain demands and only confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,73,639/ -; that their appeal against the confirmation of demand was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as by the Appellate Tribunal vide Order No. 276/2000 -B dated 31.12.99. He further mentioned that the department has also filed an appeal before the Commissioner Appeals, which was dismissed; that however, the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 187/2001 -B dated 28.2.2001 allowed the department's appeal by way of remand; that on remand the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order has classified the impugned Product under Heading 85.43 and confirmed the demand.

(3.) COUNTERING the arguments Shri S.M. Tata, learned SDR, submitted that the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 187/2001 -B dated 28.2.2001 has remanded the appeal filed by the Revenue to the Commissioner (Appeals) for afresh decisions on merit after hearing both the sides; that thus the Commissioner (Appeals) was well within his right to decide the classification of the impugned product afresh; that Explanatory Notes of H.S.N. below heading 85.43 clearly mentions that Signal Generator falls under the said heading; that the learned Advocate has not brought any material to show that the Signal Generators manufactured by them are different from the signal Generators mentioned in HSN Explanatory Note below Heading 85.43. He, therefore, contended that the impugned product is rightly classifiable under heading 85.43.