SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is a manufacturer of the goods referred by the petitioner as 'telephone dial' for telephone apparatus instrument. The question raised in this writ petition involves the interpretation of Section 11-a of the central excise and salt Act, 1944 ('the act' for short ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner had filed classification list of the goods for approval under Rule 173-b of the central excise rules, 1944 ('the rules' for short ). In the list the petitioner classified the goods in question as falling under chapter 85, sub-heading 8548 of the central excise tariff act of india, 1986. The petitioner had filed a series of such lists. The first one is dated 28th february, 1986 (Annexure-A) lobe effective from ihc said date; second list (Annexure-B) was filed to be effective from 1-3-1986;t third list (annexurc-c) was filed to be effective from 1-4-1986 and the fourth list (Annexure-D) was filed to be effective from 2-4-1986. In all these lists the goods in question was classified under the sub-heading 8548 as electrical parts of machinery or apparatus not specified or included elsewhere in chapter 85, the second respondent approved the said lists by making an appropriate endorsement on the relevant lists filed by the petitioner and also by issuing a separate endorsement in that regard, which is dated 6th october, 1986. According to the petitioner he acted upon this approval and cleared the goods after crediting the excise duty thereon treating the goods under the tariff item 8548. Subsequently, the petitioner received a show cause police dated 27th january, 1987 asking the petitioner to show cause to the second respondent as to why the goods in question classified hitherto as falling under subheading 8548 should not be classified under sub-heading 8517 and consequently why not the differential duty of Rs. 1,52,250/- as detailed should not be recovered from the petitioner in respect of the goods cleared during the period 20th august, 1986 to 22nd december, 1986 and this recovery was sought under Section 11-a of the act the petitioner has challenged this notice as having been issued without jurisdiction by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court

( 3 ) ACCORDING to Sri chander kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, the classification lists were approved by the proper officer under Rule 173-b of the rules and thereafter the petitioner has been clearing the goods by crediting the requisite duty thereon and at the end of every month appropriate returns were filed by the petitioner as contemplated by Rule 173- (j (3) of the rules and these returns were accepted by the proper officer and appropriate orders had been made in the manner provided by the said rules read with rt 12 form. The assessment of the petitioner has been thus completed under Rule 173-1. In these circumstances, it is contended by the petitioner that the approved classification lists cannot be changed or modified by the same officer. The remedy of the revenue, if at all, is to invoke seclinn 35-e of the act against the earlier approval of the classification list. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the purpose of Section 11-a is only to recover the short paid duty or lo recover the duty which was not levied by mistake etc, but Section 11-a docs not enable the proper officer who approved the classification list earlier and thereafter made an assessment order under Rule 173-1 to re-assess the petitioner for which purpose he has lo necessarily undo the approval given to the classification list. The basic contention raised by the petitioner is that under Section 11-a the proper officer is not competent lo withdraw the approval given earlier to a classification list and then determine the duty payable by an assessee afresh and then proceed to recover the same.

( 4 ) THE learned standing counsel for the central (jovernmcnt however urged that Section 11-a is a provision enacted to safeguard the interest of the revenue and it con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document