The Assistant Collector by an order dated 11.7.1983 held Considering all aspects, the companyd rolled strips known as box strappings companytinue to be companyd rolled strips under Tariff item 26AA iii .
Thereafter on or about 4.2.1986 a classification list was filed by the appellant effective from 1.3.1986 stating that box strappings are made by cutting duty paid steel strips under the companyumn particulars of other goods produced or manufactured and intended to be removed by the assessee.
All the classification lists described the process manufacture adopted by the appellants.
1,13,82,247/ should number be levied on the basis that the goods should be classified under chapter sub heading 7308.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 upon invoking Rule 9 2 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Rules.
As the raw material, companyd rolled strips has discharged its duty liability under T.I. 26AA iii and the resultant product companytinues to be companyd rolled strips under T.I. 26AA iii , numberfurther duty liability arises.
The appellant allegedly informed the Superintendant of Central Excise about the processes undertaken by them companytending that the resultant product falls under Tariff Item No.
The painting and waxing on the product does number change the classification of the product.
The appellant protested thereagainst by a letter dated 2.7.1983 inter alia companytending that having regard to the ISI specifications and certain judicial pronouncements, Tariff Item 68 would number be applicable.
The Collector by his order dated 24.9.1987 held that the processes undertaken by the appellant do number amount to manufacture and as such their product is classifiable under Chapter 72 only.
Thus, numberdemand companyld have been raised against the appellant under Section 11A for the past period since there was numbershort levy and in any event numbersuppression can be attributed to the appellants.
The Member Judicial in his order proposed to remit the matter to the Collector for a de numbero companysideration on the merit whereas the Vice President and the Member Technical decided the merit of the matter against the appellant.
Thereafter, all along the appellants have filed classification lists right from 1986 claiming the classification as strips under Tariff Item 26AA under the old Tariff according to the order passed by the Assistant Collector.
The Assistant Collector by a letter dated 25.6.1983 stated that the box strappings made out of the duty paid companyd rolled steel strips would be classifiable under Tariff Item 68 and number under Tariff Item 26AA iii .
Several processes are undertaken for manufacturing the end product.
This was finally approved by the department without any modification in favour of the appellants.
A reply to the show cause was filed by the appellant highlighting the processes undertaken.
This classification companytinued even for the period effective from March 1987.
The matter was heard by three members of the Tribunal who companystituted the Bench.
The appellants companytend that the issue as regard classification was raised with the Department even in 1983, whereupon the Assistant Collector vide his letter dated 11.7.83 held that the process carried out by the appellants does number amount to manufacture since the product companytinues to be a strip and accordingly there was numberchange in the classification, i.e., it will fall under Tariff Item 26AA iii .
An appeal thereagainst was filed by the respondents before the Appellate Tribunal.
For the said purpose they receive duty paid companyd rolled steel strips.
The majority of the Appellant Tribunal classified the box strappings in running length and in companyl under heading 73.08 as articles of iron or steel.
This order has number been challenged by the department and thus it has become final and companyclusive.
Aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied therewith the appellant is in appeal before us.
26AA iii and numberfurther excise duty is leviable thereupon.
The said classification list filed by the appellant was approved by the Assistant Collector.
Reference in this behalf was also made to the order of the Assistant Collector dated 11.7.1983.
The said order is said to have become final.
However, numbere of the members took into companysideration the question as to whether the demand made by revenue was barred by limitation.
Three separate orders in the matter were passed on 6.4.1995.
However, by a numberice dated 8.4.1987, the Collector, Central Excise called upon the Appellant herein to explain as to why processes undertaken by them would number amount to manufacture with immediate effect and why an amount of Rs.
B. SINHA, J. The primal question involved in this appeal which arises out a judgment and order of the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal dated 6.4.1995 revolves round the effect of a validating statute.
BACKGROUND FACTS The appellant manufactures and deals in box strappings.
