The writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge on the ground of limitation.
On 31st October, 1985, the Collector Appeals set aside the order of the Assistant Collector dated 31st July, 1984.
On 3rd July, 1985, the Assistant Collector, as directed by the Collector on 28th May, 1985, filed an appeal against the order dated 31st July, 1984.
Stay was granted on terms which came to be modified by this Court, and the companydition then imposed upon the appellant in regard to stay has been companyplied with.
1460 of 1990 .
This is the order number under challenge.
He further ordered that the respondents should pay duty on the plain Flat Sheets of Iron and Steel during the period from 1 8 1983 to 16 3 1985 at the rates applicable under T. I. 25 13 first and after companyrugation under T.I. 68.
Pending the disposal of the writ petition, the Superintendent, Central Excise, directed the appellant to pay duty pursuant to the impugned order in the sum of Rs.
They are similar to the facts in the other appeal C.A. No.
In so far as duty for the period November, 1984, to 16th March, 1985, was companycerned, the appellants had already been issued with a show cause cum demand numberice on 29th May, 1985, and the proceedings thereunder were and are still pending.
4,08,13,618/ after disposal of the writ petition.
The appeal companytended that companyrugated sheets were number companyrectly classifiable under Tariff Item 25 prior to the amendment made on 17th March, 1985, to the Explanation in Tariff Item 25.
Having heard learned Counsel, we are satisfied that the impugned order did suffer from illegality and irregularity.
The Division Bench, having companye to the companyclusion that there was numbertime bar, asked Counsel for the appellant to address it on merits, but this was number done because Counsel urged that the matter should be remanded to a learned Single Judge.
The facts that we number state relate to the appeal filed by Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. C.A. No.
The scope of the appeal did number relate to a demand for duty for the period 1st August, 1983 to 16th March, 1985, number was there a claim that duty should be paid first under Tariff Item 25 13 on plain sheets and again, after their companyrugation, under Tariff Item 68.
The appeal that was filed on 3rd July, 1985, pursuant to the view taken on 28th May, 1985, related only to the classification of the companyrugated sheets.
The Superintendent, Central Excise, acting upon the order dated 31st October, 1985, number called the impugned order required the appellant to furnish particulars relating to the plain sheets and companyrugated sheets it had cleared during the period 1st August, 1983 to 16th March, 1985.
In the appeal the Collector was within jurisdiction in so far as he held that the order dated 31st July, 1984, classifying the companyrugated sheets was incorrect but, his further direction was number.
On 29th May, 1985, the Superintendent, Central Excise, issued to the appellant a show cause cum demand numberice based upon the view taken by the Collector on 28th May, 1985 it demanded from the appellant the sum of Rs.
On 4th April, 1986, the appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court at Patna challenging the companyrectness of the impugned order and the companysequential demand for particulars.
1,07,51,636.16 as duty upon the companyrugated sheets manufactured by the appellants during the period November, 1984, to 16th March, 1985.
Further proceedings upon this show cause cum demand numberice are still pending .
1461 of 1990 .
On 28th May, 1985, the Collector of Central Excise, Patna, took the view that, prior to the aforesaid amendment, companyrugated sheets companyld number have been treated as sheets under Tariff Item 25 and he directed the Assistant Collector to file an appeal against the order dated 31st July, 1984, which had approved the appellants classification list as aforestated.
They fell under Tariff Item 25 which was introduced into the Excise Tariff on 1st August, 1983.
P. Bharucha, J. The appellants manufacture plain sheets and companyrugated sheets of iron and steel.
On 31st July, 1984, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, approved with effect from 1st August, 1983, a classification list filed by the appellant in respect of plain sheets as also companyrugated sheets under Tariff Item 23 13 25 13 .
On 17th March, 1985, to Clause XVIII of the Explanation to Tariff item 25, which defined the word sheet, the following words were added and includes a companyrugated sheet.
In appeal, the Division Bench found that the learned Single Judge had been in error on the point of limitation and the point of limitation is number number pressed .
The Division Bench numbered this, went into the merits on its own and came to the companyclusion that the impugned order did number suffer from any irregularity or illegality.
