Case: M/S. GENERAL RUBBER COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-II

2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows :  The Appellants are manufacturers of Grooved Rubber Sole Plates. They filed the classification list classifying their products under Tariff Item 4008.29. The Respondent insisted that the classification of their goods must be under Tariff Item No. 4016.99 and that the goods cannot be cleared until they are so classified. The Appellants, therefore, by their letter dated 21st December, 1991 agreed to classify the goods under Tariff Item 4019.99 under protest but claimed the benefit of Circular No. 175/86.  3. The Board issued a clarificatory circular dated 20th April, 1992 clarifying that the goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 4008.29. After the Boards circular, the Appellants started clearing their goods under Tariff Item 4008.29 without filing a fresh classification list. The fresh classification list was only filed by them in November, 1992.  4. A show case notice was issued to them demanding duty on the ground that they cleared the goods without filing a fresh classification list. This demand was confirmed. However, the Collector (Appeals) set aside the demand on the ground that the Boards Circular made it clear that these goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 4008.29 and the goods were to be cleared at nil rate of duty.  5. The Respondent carried the matter in Appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has, by the impugned Judgment, held that as a fresh classification list was not filed, the Appellants could only have the goods cleared under the old classification list. The Tribunal held that they were, thus, liable to pay the duty, as demanded.

Court's reasoning:
6. We are unable to sustain the Order of the Tribunal on the facts of this case. The classification list had been revised under protest. Once the Board clarified that these goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 4008.29, the Appellant become entitled to clear the goods under that Tariff Item. At the highest, the Appellants could have been penalised for not filing a classification list under Rule 173. No duty could have been demanded from them under Rule 9.2.