1. Dispute regarding the effective date for demanding differential excise duty following a change in product classification via a Tariff Advice. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 2274
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I. and Sujata V. Manohar, J.
Collector Of Central Excise, Baroda - Appellant
Versus
Wood Polymer Limited - Respondent
CA. No. 1631 of 1988
Decided On : 18-12-1996
Demand for differential excise duty based on a Tariff Advice is justified from the date of the issuance of the Advice, rather than the date of its communication to the assessee.
Headnote:(A) Central Excise Tariff - Entry 15A(2) and Entry 68 - Classification of industrial plastic laminates - Demand for differential duty - Date of Tariff Advice versus date of communication - Demand raised from the date of the Tariff Advice is justified. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
Industrial plastic laminates were charged to duty under one entry of the tariff until a specific date, after which the classification changed to another entry. A Tariff Advice was subsequently issued stating that the product was classifiable under the original entry. The revenue department issued a show cause notice demanding the differential amount from the date of the Tariff Advice. The assessee contended that the demand should be raised only from the date of communication of the said Advice.
Findings of Court:
The demand for differential duty from the date of the Tariff Advice is justified.
Issues: Whether the demand for differential duty should be raised from the date of the Tariff Advice or from the date of its communication to the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Following the precedent established by the court in a previous decision, the demand for differential duty is valid from the date of the Tariff Advice rather than the date of its communication.
Result: Appeal Allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
tax law
-
central excise
-
classification of goods
- tariff advice (Para 1)
-
classification of goods
-
central excise
Table of Contents
2. Whether differential duty demand should be calculated from the date of issuance of a Tariff Advice or from the date of its communication. (Para 1 )
3. The court found the issue squarely answered by existing precedent in favor of the Revenue. (Para 1 )
4. Differential duty demands based on a Tariff Advice are justified from the date of the Advice's issuance. (Para 1 )
5. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside, and the order of the Collector (Appeals) restored. (Para 1 )
6. From which date is a demand for differential duty justified following the issuance of a Tariff Advice?
The demand for differential duty is justified from the date of the Tariff Advice, rather than the date on which the Advice was communicated to the assessee. (Para 1 )
ORDER :
A.M. Ahmadi, CJI. -
1. The question at issue is a short one and arises thus :
The product, which is industrial plastic laminates was charged to duty under Entry 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff upto 13-12-1980. Thereafter, the classification underwent a change and the duty was charged under Entry 68 with effect from 1-1-1981. Duty has been paid under that Entry upto 28-12- 1981. A Tariff Advice No. 123/81, dated 16-11-1981 came to be communicated on 28-12-1981 stating that the product was classifiable under Entry 15A(2). A show cause notice was, therefore, issued on 5-2-1982 and the differential amount was demanded from 16-11-1981 to 31-12-1981. The Department raised the demand from the date of the Tariff Advice, i.e., 16-11-1981. The assessee, however, contended that it should be from the date of communication of the Advice, i.e., 28-12-1981. Therefore, the narrow question which arises for determination is whether the demand from 16-11-1981 is justified. This question stands squarely answered by the decision of this Court in Ballarpur Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Customs & Central Excise and Ors. 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 429 in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Following the said decision, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the order of Collector (Appeals). There will be no order as to costs.
Appeal Allowed.
