TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty has not been levied or paid or has been short levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, whether or not such non-levy or non-payment, short-levy or short-payment or erroneous refund was on the basis of any approval, acceptance or assessment, the Central Excise Officer can serve a notice as to why payment should not be made. This amendment has been made retrospectively with effect from 17th November, 1980. The effect of this amendment was considered by this Court in the case of ITW Signode India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in [2003 (11) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] wherein the validity of this amendment was upheld. The view taken by this Court in Collector of Central Excise v. Cotspun Limited reported in (199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1990 issued by the Board. The Tribunal relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of H.M. Bags Manufacturer v. Collector of Central Excise reported in [1997 (94) E.L.T. 3] wherein it has been held that change of opinion based on a trade notice can only operate prospectively. In this Judgment it has been noticed that the concerned trade notice itself clarified that it would operate "henceforth". Therefore this Court held that classification pursuant to the trade notice can only be prospective. The Tribunal has therefore held that the demands for a period prior to this circular dated 23rd of October, 1990 could not have been made and such demands must be deemed to be time- barred. 4. On behalf of Respondents it has been submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been made retrospectively with effect from 17th November, 1980. The effect of this amendment was considered by this Court in the case of ITW Signode India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in [2004 (3) SCC 48] wherein the validity of this amendment was upheld. The view taken by this Court in Collector of Central Excise v. Cotspun Limited reported in [1999 (7) SCC 633] was held to be no longer good law. The Order directing Modification of classification list has no bearing on the aspect of demand made under the Show Cause Notices. 6. In this view, we do not find the demand to be time-barred. Therefore, on the question of limitation it is held in favour of the appellants. 7. The Appeals are disposed of accordingly. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
