TMI Blog1983 (10) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 and upheld by the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, New Delhi by his order dated 17-3-1983 is correct. 2. The appellants, a small scale manufacturers, inter alia are engaged in the manufacture of products falling under Tariff Item 34A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called Act). One of the products manufactured and cleared by the appellants is Pistons. They filed a Classification List on 30-3-1978 effective from 1-4-1978 claiming benefit of Notification No. 71/78-C.E. at nil rate of duty for the first clearance of ₹ 5 lakhs and to a chargeable rate of duty for clearances exceeding ₹ 5 lakhs and upto ₹ 15 lakhs. They claim that in the Classification List they had made a cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 26-7-1971 cleared during the financial year 1978-79 from 1-4-1978 to 30-11-1978. The appellants showed cause and submitted that proper classification list had been filed and there was no suppression and in any case the Department could at best realise duty only on goods valued at ₹ 41,358.00. They also submitted that the show cause notice was time-barred as it was issued beyond 6 months from the date of payment of duty. The Assistant Collector negated this contention and by his order dated 31-3-1981 confirmed the demand, the order was upheld in appeal by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi by his order dated 17-3-1983, hence the present appeal. 3. At the hearing of the appeal, Shri. D.N. Mehta, learned Consultant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t.); (iii) M/s. Shambhu Nath Sons Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh 1983 E.C.R. 291D (C.E.G.A.T.) = 1983 E.L.T. 396 (C.E.G.A.T.); and (iv) M/s. United Electrical Industries Ltd., Quilon v. Collector of Customs, Bombay 1983 E.C.R. 819D (C.E.G.A.T.) = 1983 E.L.T. 991 (C.E.G.A.T.). 4. On behalf of the respondent, SH. V. Laxmi Kumaran, Senior Departmental Representative submitted that in the Notification No. 37/79-C.E., there is nothing to show that the amendment was clarificatory in nature. There is no contradiction in para 2 of Notification No. 71/78-C.E., and its main part, and thereby para 2 could not be ignored. Deletion of para 2 by Notification No. 237/79-C.E., could not help the appellants, because at the materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation as it stands at the material time. As to the contention that amendment under Notification No. 237/79-C.E. should apply retrospectively. We do not accept this contention also. There is nothing to show that the amendment was clarificatory in nature. Had it been so, it would have been clearly so worded. Fiscal policies of Government can be changed from time to time and they may have had there own reasons. In not having accorded benefit at some earlier period which they thought proper to do at a later period. As to the contention that the appellants had made full and proper disclosure in the classification lists, we are afraid that on going through the classifications lists, we cannot agree with Shri. Mehta in his this contention. A no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
