JUDGMENT - N.P. CHAPALGAONKER, J.:---Petitioner No. 1- a Private Limited Company is the producer of the polyester films. On 11th November 1976, they had filed a classification list under Rule 173-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 that the Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad after ascertaining the nature of the produce by chemical test and finding that the raw material used is saturated polyester chips and the final product is rigid plastic and noticing the commercial sense and trade parlance of the term 'polyester films' supported by evidence, was pleased to hold that the polyester sheets are outside the purview of T.I. 15-A i.e. plastic, and as such, would fall under T.I. 68 of C.E.T. This order was passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad on 8th December 1977.

2. On 30th November 1978, Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Pune issued a Notice under section 35-A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 intimating his intention to set aside the impugned order passed by the Assistant Collector and calling the petitioners to show cause why the said order should not be modified as proposed. On 12th June 1980, the Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Pune annulled the order dated 8th December 1977 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Aurangabad and held that the product is liable for excise duty under Item No. 15-A (2) of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. He has directed the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Aurangabad to determine the differential duty due on the polyester film cleared by the party at rates appropriate for tariff item No. 68 and the duty actually due under tariff item No. 15-A(2) of the C.E.T. and raise demands for the same. This order dated 12-6-1980 has been challenged in this petition.

3. Shri R.G. Sheth, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, raised following points assailing the order of the Collector impugned in this writ petition :---

(i) Revision of the order passed by the Assistant Collector made by the Collector was beyond the period of limitation prescribed by law.

(ii) Collector had no jurisdiction to revise the order passed by the Assistant Collector on 8-12-1977 since the power of the Collector to revise the orders of the subordinate came into existence on 1st July, 1978.

(iii) The classification accepted by the Assistant Collector was proper one and the product in question cannot be classified as plastic either on the basis of chemical properties or its recognition by the trade and industry.

(iv) Collector, Central Excise has only purported to revise the classification list of 11-11-1976. However, the subsequent classification similarly made from the year 1976 to 1977 was approved by the Assistant Collector and has not been reviewed by the Collector.

(v) Even if it is held that the goods in question do fall under Item 15-A(2), it is exempted by the Exemption Notification No. 68/71 as amended by Notification No. 198/78 dated 25-11-1978. Therefore, the direction for the recovery of the difference was totally uncalled for.

4. Shri R.G. Deo, learned Counsel for Union of India contended that the time limit prescribed for the revision of any order of subordinate in respect of the classification is one year as provided by sub-section (4) of section 35-A. He contended that if the order is in respect of the calculation of the duty and thereby seeking to recover the duty not levied or short levied or wrongly refunded, then the limitation as provided for in section 11-A of the Excise Act would be applicable but in all other cases, the revision of the orders passed by the subordinate is permissible within a period of one year. Since the show cause notice was issued on 30-11-1978 i.e. within one year from the date of the order sought to be revised, it was well within limitation.

5. Shri Deo further contended that sub-section (2) inserted by substituting whole section 35-A on 1-7-1978 is retrospective

Click Here to Read the rest of this document