COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE versus M/S. MYSORE ELECTRICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 19 · Decided: 15-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

> 
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE 
A 
v. 
MIS. MYSORE ELECTRICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. 
NOVEMBER 15, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
B 
Customs Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Section 37B; CSH 8535, 8536 & 
8537/Central Board of Excise & Customs Circular No. 3218194-CX and 
Notification No. 52193 dated 2812193: 
c 
Classification-Single Panel Circuit Breakers-Levy of Excise duty 
under CSH 8535 or 8537-Circular re-classifying the product under CSH 
8537-Effective date-Held: Re-classification of the product in question 
could take effect prospectively from the date of communication of the Show-
· cause Notice proposing re-classification-Hence, differential amount of Excise D 
duty could be levied from that date. 
The questions which arose for consideration by this Court in the appeal 
~ 
were as to whether Single Panel Circuit Breakers, an electrical appliance, 
manufactured by the respondent-assessee could be classifiable under Tariff 
Heading 8535.00 of the Customs Excise Tariff Act as claimed by the assessee E 
or classifiable under Tariff Heading 8537.00 as classified by the Revenue for 
the purpose of levying excise duty and as to whether the Circular issued by 
. the Central Board of Excise & Customs classifying the product under the 
Heading 8537.00 could be given retrospective effect. 
Revenue contended that much prior to issuance of Circular dated G 
14.07.1994 classifying the product in question under CSH 8537, a show cause 
notice was issued by the Assistant Collector on 17.12.1993 on the basis of 
~ 
his interpretation of the two entries CSH 8535 and CSH 8537; that the said 
order is not based on the circular dated 14.07.1994 and, therefore, the circular 
had no application to the facts of this case; that under Section 378 of the Act, F 
the Board is empowe11ed to issue instructions to Central Excise Officers for 
the purpose of maintaining uniformity in the classification of eligible goods 
which instructions, are required to be followed by such officers; and that 
switches, fuses, relays, plugs, junction boxes etc. have been given the status 
of separate/individual items. Without these items main equipments/machinery 
19 
H 
"" 
20 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A cannot function, therefore, though they may be parts of certain machinery, 
yet they have to be classified under those headings where 'they are specifically 
mentioned. Thus, the panels manufactured by the assessee contain more than 
two apparatus falling under heading 85.35 and 85.37 of the Act. 
The respondent-assessee submitted that when there is a concurrent 
B finding of fact in his favour, the appeal filed by ~he Revenue has no merits; 
that the issues involved in the present appeal is a question of fact which has 
been decided in his favour both by the Commissioner (Appeals) and by the 
Tribunal and thus there is a concurrent finding of fact in his favour; that the 
circular being oppressive and has to be applied only prospectively and cannot 
C be applied retrospectively; and that for the period in question, trade notices 
had been issued classifying the circuit breakers under Heading No. 85.35 or 
85.36 depending upon the voltage, such notices are binding upon the Revenue. 
Thus, the circuit breaker is classifiable under Heading 85.35. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The assessee had filed a classification list effective from 
01.03.1993, classifying the Single Panel Circuit Breakers under Heading 
No. 85.35 and claiming concessional rate of duty at 5% under Notification 
No. 52/93 dated 28.02.1993. The said classification list was approved by the 
jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. Thereafter, the assessee cleared the 
E said goods in accordance with the approved classification list. When the 
approved classification was proposed to be revised to reclassify the Single 
Panel Circuit Breakers under Heading No. 85.37 of the Tariff Act, such re-
classification can take effect only prospectively from the date of 
communication of the show ca<1se notice proposing re-classification. 
Accordingly, the differential amount of duty can be demanded from that date. 
F 
G 
H 
[24-C-D-E-Fl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4488 of2005. 
From the Final Order No. 1943/2004 dated 6-12-2004 ofthe CESTAT, at 
Bangalore in Appeal No. E/339/2001. 
Mohan K Parasaran, A.S:G., T.S. Dhobia, Chinmoy Pradip Sharma and 
B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellant. 
A.R. Madhav Rao, Alok Yadav and M.P. Deva

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.