TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are STD/PCO Monitors. 2. The learned Advocate for the respondents Shri G.B. Yadav states that prior to 24-1-94, these goods were classified under Heading 85.17. From 24-1-94 till 5-4-99, these goods were classified under Heading 90.29. Subsequent to the Conference of Collectors of Central Excise held at Coimbatore on 27/28-12-1993, Board's Letter F. No. 172/4/93-CX. 4, dated 24-1-1994 was issued holding that the subject goods merit classification under Heading 90.29 of Central Excise Tariff, 1985 in view of HSN notes (2) at page No. 1522 under heading Electronic Production Counters. He states that subsequently on 5-4-99, Board issued an order under Section 37B clarifying classification of the said products under Heading 87.40. It is his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Board could have only prospective effect and the same cannot be applied retrospective. He further states that an order issued un den Section 37B revising classification is effective only from the date of issue as held in H.M. Bags (cited supra). 4. Shri S.S. Bhagat, learned SDR appearing for the department, states that the decisions cited by the learned Advocate are not legal and good law in view of the fact that Section 11A has been retrospectively amended by the Finance Act, 2000 and validity of such retrospective amendment has been upheld by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITW Signode India Ltd . -2003 (158) E.L.T. 403 (S.C.). It is the contention of the ld. SDR that the retrospectively amended Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thew, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents on 18-6-2007 states that the order passed by the lower appellate authority is correct in law and also cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suchitra Components Ltd. v. CCE, Guntur reported in 2007 (208) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) which holds that when the Boards circular are against the assessee, they have right to claim its enforcement prospectively. 8. After considering submissions from both sides as well as the cited decisions, we find that the demand has been issued pursuant to an order by the Board issued under Section 37B on 5-4-99. Prior to that, the respondents were classifying the impugned goods under another Board's Circular dated 24-1-94. We also find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
