TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Tariff Item 68 or under Item 52 of the Central Excise Tariff has been conclusively decided by the ratio of the ruling of the Special Bench in the case of Quality Sales Corporation, Ludhiana v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, reported in 1986 (23) E.L.T. 137 (Tribunal) to the effect that the items in question are classifiable under Tariff Item 52 of the Central Excise Tariff. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that he does not want to agitate the question once over before us and would not press his contention in that regard. Nevertheless, the learned Counsel submitted that the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ludhiana by order dated 3-10-1973 has held that nuts and bolts manufactured by the appellants are specially d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l authority in para 19 of the order referred to supra as totally without jurisdiction and further contended that though specifically the plea was taken in this regard before the Appellate authority, namely, the Central Board of Excise and Customs, the Appellate authority has neither adverted to the same, much less considered the issue. The learned Counsel also drew our attention to ground No.7 of his appeal before the first appellate authority, wherein the appellants have specifically pleaded that the order of the jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ludhiana, dated 3-1-1973 holding that the goods in question fall outside the purview of the Tariff Item 52, had assumed finality and was, therefore, not susceptible of retrospe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is an order in adjudication by a quasi-judicial authority in exercise of quasi-judicial power. 5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are inclined to hold that the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ludhiana is a quasi-judicial order and has reached a stage of finality, since same, admittedly, was not revised or modified in a manner known to law. In such a situation when the Collector of Central Excise in the original order referred to supra has found that the said goods are classifiable under Tariff Item 52, the appellant could be fastened with the duty liability for the said goods in terms of Tariff Item 52 of the Central Excise Tariff only as and when the issue was decided by the authority. It is not open ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the change in classification would be applicable 6 months preceding the date of show cause notice dated 11-9-1979 under which the Department has not only asked the party to show cause as to why the seized goods should not be confiscated under Rule 173Q and why penal action should not be taken against the appellants under Rule 173Q, but the appellants have also been asked to show cause as to why duty should not be demanded under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules. It is to be noted here that the limitation period spelt out in Rule 9(2) is the same as spelt out in Section 11A (or Rule 10 as it then existed). In view of the fact that the department was aware of the manufacture of bolts and nuts by the appellants and had even told the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
