Per. P.K. Kapoor: This is an appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE/PP Woven Sacks, filed a Classification List seeking the classification of HDPE/PP Woven Sacks under Subheading 6301.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. On the basis of the order No. 8/92 dated 24.11.92 issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs under the provisions of Section 37-B, the appellants were served with a Show Cause Notice seeking the recovery of differential duty amounting to Rs. 4,31,838/- in respect of the clearances of the said goods effected from the factory during the period June, 1992 to November, 1992 on the grounds that the goods in question were classifiable under sub-heading 3923.90. The appellants contested the demand on the ground that the clearances during the relevant period having been effected on the basis of an approved Classification List no demand could be raised for the past period until the Classification List was revised and any revision of the Classification List could have only prospective effect. However,, by his order dated 25.2.1993 the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Collector, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Collector on the ground that Boards instruction dated 24.9.1992 stating that HDPE/PP Woven Sacks were classificable under sub-heading 3923.90 having been issued under Section 37 B was binding on the Assistant Collector and on this account demand for a period not exceeding six months from the date of the said instruction was sustainable.

2. On behalf of the appellants, Shri A.S. Sundar Rajan, the Ld. Consultant appeared before us. He contended that the Assistant Collectors order confirming the demand for the period 24.9.92 to 15.11.92 was illegal since the assessments made during that period were on the basis of an approved Classification List. He added that on the basis of the Boards Instructions F. No. 54/12/91-CXI dated 24.9.1992 (Order No. 8/92) under Section 37-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act advising the field formations that HDPE/PP Woven Socks were classifiable under sub-heading 3923.90 the Collector had issued a Trade Notice on 5.11.92. He contended that the classification of HDPE/PP Woven Sacks under sub-heading 6301.00 could be changed only after the revision of the approved Classification List of the appellants and on this account any demand issued for the period prior to the revision of the Classification List would not be legally sustainable. He stated that in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, West Bengal reported in 1985 (22) ELT 487 it has been held that demand due to change in Departments stated regarding their earlier approved practice can be only prospective from the date of the Show Cause Notice. He added that as reported in 1990 (48) ELT A 24 the Supreme Court has confirmed the Tribunal's decision. In support of his contention he also placed reliance on the following case law:

Shri Sundar Rajan submitted that it is now well settled that Notifications and Departmental orders take effect from the date from which they are made available to the public. He stated that under these circumstances, the demand of differential duty for the period prior 5.9.92 i.e. the date on which the Trade Notice based on Boards Instructions under Section 37 B was issued, would be illegal. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the following case law:

Haryana