TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y levied is on the basis of the approved classification list. It is submitted that in the latter Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITW Signode India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, [2003 (2) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the argument before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been amended by Finance Act, 2000 with effect from 17111980. That is made with a view to change the basis of the Judgment in Cotspun Limited [1999 (9) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. It is in these circumstances that the earlier view was brought to the notice of the Bench dealing with the case of ITW Signode India Ltd. The matter was then referred to a Larger Bench. Then our attention is invi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... classified under Tariff Item No.29 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. The petitioners have stated as to how these Engines were supplied to M/s. Bharat Earth Movers, Bangalore and they filed a classification list. Then the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pune, by his order of 5-7-1966, classified these Engines for Dumper Application as falling under subitem (1) of Tariff Item No.29. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with that order, the petitioners approached the Collector of Central Excise, in appeal. That appeal was dismissed on 29-9-1966. Thereafter, a revision application was filed with the Government of India. The revision application was allowed with consequential relief of refund of duty. 4. Thereaft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at there is total nonapplication of mind on the part of the Authorities and they could not have raised the same issues again and again. Once again the petitioners are sought to be proceeded again on the same cause of action. 7. On the other hand, learned Advocate Ms Cardozo, appearing for the Revenue, would submit that it is incorrect to urge that this is a relook at the same issue and on the same cause of action. It is submitted that Dumpers are motorvehicles and the I.C. Engines cleared for fitment to Dumpers attract duty under Tariff Item No.29(i), yet, the petitioners insisted on subitem (ii) and that is not correct. She invites our attention to the affidavit in reply. 8. Our attention has been fairly invited to a Judgment of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of the Larger Bench {2003 (158) E.L.T. 403 (S.C.), ITW Signode India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise} and it was held therein that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, as amended by Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 making a provision for reopening of the approved classification list is a valid piece of legislation. 10. In the light of the fact that there is now an authoritative pronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, we cannot sustain the challenge raised in this writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. 11. Now, the amount demanded, namely, ₹ 64,03,582.24 is already paid. There is no penalty imposed. 12. In the facts and circumstances of this case, Mr. Nankani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
