Per J.H. Joglekar :

The dispute in this case is as to the determination of rate of duty in terms of notification No. 213/86 CE dt. 25.3.86. This notification continued to extend the benefit of notifications earlier available to goods falling under T.I. 68 in the old tariff and prescribed duty @ 25% when calculated with reference to any other notification providing partial exemption from payment of duty. The assessees claimed the effective rate of duty at 3% on the ground that the rate of duty earlier attracted on the goods falling under T.I. 68, was 12%. The Assistant Collector held that the rate of duty applicable would be 20% and calculated the effective duty payable by the assessees at 5%. In his Order-in-appeal, the Collector, relying upon the declaration of the Board that this notification had retrospective effect, held that the effective rate of duty should be 3% and not 5%. Hence, the present appeal before us.

2. We have heard Shri D.S. Negi, ld. S.D.R. for the Revenue. Respondents were not represented.

3. Shri Negi's claim is that for determining the effective rate under this notification, it is first necessary to determine the effective rate leviable on the goods on their classification under the new tariff. On reading of the notification, we find this claim to be correct. In other words, the calculation is based not on the rate of duty that was attracted when the goods were under tariff item 68, but the rate or rates attracted by these goods when re-classified under the new tariff. The Assistant Collector is not clear in his order as to how the rate of duty attracted was 20%. He should have shown the correct classification of the goods in the new tariff and should have also referred to these notifications, which determined the effective rate of duty. In the absence of these details, it will not be possible for us to determine whether the calculation of 5% effective duty taken by him was correct or not. For this limited purpose, we set aside both the orders and remand the proceedings back to the Assistant Collector. In his de novo proceedings, he shall state the classification of the products and the notification fixing the effective rate of duty. He is free to redetermine the quantum of refund payable, in terms of his findings as to the effective rate of duty. Ordered accordingly.