SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Flex Industries Limited
Vs.
Collector of Central Excise, Meerut
C.A.No.7080 of 1996
(V. N. Khare CJI., S. H. Kapadia and S. B. Sinha JJ.)
28.01.2004
JUDGMENT
S. H. Kapadia, J.
1. In this appeal, we are concerned with the two questions which are as
follows:
“(1) Whether the amendment to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944
by Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 is a valid piece of legislation?
(2) Whether after the appellate authority had decided the appeal of the
appellant herein and that having obtained finality, is it permissible for the
Department to issue a show cause notice on the basis of a circular issued by
the Board dated 5-5-1989 subsequently revised by Board's circular dated
13-7-1989?”
2. So far as the first question is concerned, the same stands concluded by the
decision of this Court in ITW Signode India Ltd. v. Collector of Central
Excise, 0 (S.C.).
3. As regards the second question, it is not disputed that although the
appellant claimed NIL duty, however it paid the duty under Tariff Item No.
39.23 in Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant herein being
not satisfied with the assessment, filed an appeal before the Collector.
4. In the meantime, the Board by Circular dated 5-5-1989 provided that the
classification of goods in which the appellant dealt with, will be under
Chapter 49 prior to 16-1-1989. Subsequently, the said circular was modified by
another Circular dated 13-7-1989 holding that the classification of the goods
in which the appellant dealt with, will be under Heading 39.20 as per decision
of the Collectors' conference. Armed with this circular, the Department sent
show cause notices to the appellant herein initiating proceedings under Section
11A of the Central Excise Act alleging short levy and demanding differential
duty. The appellant contested the show cause notice. However, the Assistant
Collector confirmed the demands by his order dated 28-5-1992. Thereafter, the
appellant filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) which was dismissed.
An appeal filed before the Tribunal against the order of the Collector, was
also dismissed. The aforesaid facts show that before the appellant could file
an appeal, show cause notices on the basis of the revised classification list
were issued to it. That was an independent proceeding and the appeal filed by
the appellant and the orders passed thereon, have no bearing on that
proceeding. Under such circumstances, we do not find