TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification 132/86-C.E. as articles of plastic prescribing nil rate of duty. 1.2. This classification list was sought to be changed by the Department but it appears from the correspondence on record that the various authorities in the Department at the field level were not clear about the correct classification. Ultimately an order dated 9-9-1987 for changing classification from the aforesaid Tariff Heading to Chapter 46 was issued by the Assistant Collector. This order was challenged by the appellants herein before the Collector (Appeals) contending, inter alia, that the appellants were never put to notice regarding the classification of the goods under Chapter 46. This contention was accepted by the Collector (Appeals) vide his order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e concerned Collector of Central Excise. The appellants again emphasised the point that the classification list had not been finally decided by the Department because there is different opinions at different levels, namely Superintendent s level and Assistant Collector s level. Apart from that they also submitted that the show cause notice should have been issued by the concerned Collector inasmuch as it has alleged suppression and it involves the period of demand larger than six months. These contentions of the appellants went unheeded even after reply to the Collector and it resulted in an order passed by the Assistant Collector on 17-11-1989. Against the said order the appellants herein went in appeal to Collector (Appeals) who set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) vide his order dated 20-7-1990. Learned Advocate further submits that even looking into the show cause notice dated 5-8-1987, it is apparent that the period of demand is more than six months and the allegation of suppression had been made in the show cause notice. Therefore, the show cause notice issued by an Assistant Collector is not a competent show cause notice in terms of the provisions of Section 11A of the Act. He submits that this proposition is settled by the Apex Court in the case of Collector v. ONGC reported in 1998 (103) E.L.T. 3 wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that in terms of the provisions of Section 11A, as it stood during the period mentioned above, the show cause notice alleging suppression should have been i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
