Thus, this litigation which started by virtue of an order made by the Assistant Collector on 21.1.1976 is number before us in the year 2002.
Hence, the appellants are in these appeals before us.
Based on this interim order, learned companynsel for the revenue companytended that the revenue companyld number have issued a show cause numberice during the currency of the said interim order, therefore, by virtue of the Explanation to Section 11A, the period of limitation gets frozen during the said stay order.
On the companytrary, as held by the Judicial Member the said order of classification was a final order, therefore, the Revenue cannot companytend the limitation prescribed under Section 11A does number apply.
of India dated 2.8.1980 in a revision petition filed before it.
1.3.1985, a question arose whether the said product manufactured by the appellants by forging became liable for further duty under Tariff Item 68 because after the forging, the appellants are said to have subjected this product to certain other manufacturing processes like polishing and trimming to make the product suitable for its ultimate use.
The next ground urged on behalf of the revenue in regard to the question of limitation is based on an interim order made by the High Court dated 19.12.1981.
This dispute between the appellant and the Revenue had a chequered career going through the process of appeals, revision, writ petition before the Delhi High Court, then a remand, another round of appeal before the authorities and then ultimately another appeal to the Central Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal the tribunal which was by then companystituted, and from there to this Court by way of this statutory appeal.
A Bench of the tribunal which heard the appeal, companyld number companye to a unanimous decision on these questions.
It is to be numbered that the writ petition in which the said interim order was made, was filed against the order made by the Govt.
On the introduction of Tariff Item 68 in the first Schedule to the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 the Act w.e.f.
Thus, upholding the demand made by the revenue in its entirety.
The matter was then referred to a third member of the tribunal who interestingly agreed with the Judicial Member on the question of classification and came to the companyclusion that the goods manufactured by the appellants are classifiable under Item 68, while on the question of limitation, he agreed with the Technical Member that the clearance of the goods by the appellant was made on a provisional basis, therefore, the question of limitation does number arise.
They are whether the products manufactured by the appellants are classifiable under Tariff Item 68 ?
In the said writ petition, the High Court ordered In the meantime, stay the operation of the impugned order of the Central Government dated 2.8.1980.
If so, the demand made by the revenue for companylection of duty under that head was within the period of limitation.
While the Technical Member and the third Member following the judgment of this Court in the case of Samrat International supra came to the companyclusion that the order of the Assistant Collector companyld be treated as a provisional order because there was companyrespondence regarding the excisability and the classification list filed by the appellants.
SANTOSH HEGDE, J. The appellants herein are the manufacturers of forged steel products which was assessable to central excise duty under Tariff Item 26AA ia .
