JUDGMENT :

V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their appeal by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “CESTAT”), the assessee has come up with the present appeal under Section 35 L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. We have heard Shri Kunal Chatterji, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Ms. Nisha Bagchi, learned standing counsel for the respondent.

3. The appellant is a company wholly owned by the State Government of West Bengal. It is engaged in the manufacture of “Relays” which is used as part of the Railway signaling system.

4. A ‘Relay’ is generally an electrically operated switch, used to control a circuit. They may also be used where several circuits must be controlled by one signal.

5. Though essentially relays are electrical equipment, they may also form part of Railway signaling equipment.

6. While the normal electrical relays fall under Tariff Item No. 8536.90, ‘Railways and Railways signaling equipment’ fall under No. 8608.

7. It appears that from 01.03.1986 till February-1993, the effective rate of excise duty charged under both sub-headings was 15% and hence the appellant had no problem with the classification of their goods under sub-heading No.8536.90. But with effect from 28.02.1993, the effective rate of excise duty for the goods under sub-heading No.8536.90 became much higher than the effective rate of duty for the goods under sub-heading 8608.

8. On 27.08.1993, the appellant submitted a classification list for the approval of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise. This list provided details of the products manufactured by the appellant as Railway signaling equipment, including relays and claimed that they should be classified under sub-heading 8608 and not under 8536 in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. Admittedly this classification list was approved by the competent authority.

9. On 23.04.1996 the Central Board of Excise and Customs issued a circular indicating that ‘plug-in type relays’ merited classification under the Chapter Heading 85.36. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise issued nine different show cause-cum-demand notices calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why the goods should not be classified under the Sub-heading 8536.90 and why the differential duty should not be collected together with the interest and penalty.

10. The appellant gave reply to the show cause notices, contending that what was manufactured by them was supplied only to Railways as part of the signaling equipment and that, therefore, the show cause notices required to be dropped.

11. However, the Assistant Commissioner passed 9 separate Orders-in-original on 20/21.12.2001 confirming the demand. The dates of the show cause notices, the period to which each one of them related to, the differential excise duty arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority and the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority are provided in a tabular column for easy appreciation as follows:-

12. Aggrieved by the Orders-in-original, the appellant filed statutory appeals. All the nine appeals were par