1. The case was heard on 8-3-1983.

2. The matter involves classification of zinc calots under the Central Excise- Tariff during the period from 1-3-75 to 29-4-75. The appellants showed samples of zinc calots in round and hexagonal forms. They stated that classification of calots was not sub judice and that the matter pending in Madras High Court related to levy of duty on rough rolled zinc sheets at the pre-calot stage. Giving history of the present dispute, they stated that their Calcutta factory which manufactured round calots had been charged duty as applicable to zinc circles under Item 26B(2) right from 1961 while their Madras factory, which went into production in 1973, was called upon to pay duty on rough rolled zinc sheets and not on calots. With the introduction of the residuary item No. 68 in the Central Excise Tariff with effect from 1-3-1975, they were called upon to pay a further duty on calots under Item 68 in their Madras factory. Their prayer was two-fold :

(1) Exemption notification No. 118/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975 which exempted Item 68 goods, if used within the factory of production or in another factory of the same manufacturer, ought to be given retrospective effect from 1-3-75 so that their zinc calots used in their other factory for manufacture of bodies of dry cell batteries may get this exemption for the period from 1-3-75 to 29-4-75 as well, or

(2) alternatively, zinc calots may be classified as zinc manufactures under Item 26B(2) C.E.T. so that double taxation, first on rough rolled zinc sheets under Item 26B and then under Item 68 on zinc calots, is avoided.

3. We have carefully considered the matter and seen the samples. It is beyond dispute that zinc calots are known as zinc calots in the market and not as zinc circles. They cannot, therefore, be classified as zinc circles under Item 26B(2). As this Tariff Item covered only specifically named zinc manufactures and zinc calots were not one of them, it is not possible to classify zinc calots under Item 26B. Zinc calots are a distinct product from rough rolled zinc sheets out of which they are punched. They are bought and sold in the market as zinc calots and being a separate marketable product, not specified in Item 26B, they have to be assessed under the residuary Item 68 only. The appellants are well aware that in their own case the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta have decided that zinc calots are classifiable under Item 68. This might mean multi-point tax but it is not double taxation on the same product, that is, zinc calots. Multi-point taxation has, by now, become a normal feature of our Central Excise system and the case of zinc calots is not, therefore, a unique one. As regards the appellants' prayer to give retrospective effect to notification No. 118/75-CE, we find that exemption notifications are effective from the date of their issue and neither the Central Government have powers to grant such exemptions with retrospective effect nor does this notification say that it is effective retrospectively. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the appellants' pleas.

4. Accordingly, we reject this appeal.