ORDER
S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. This is an application for waiver of duty demand of Rs. 3,74,726.68. The ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted ;that in this case, the applicants were clearing goods under approved classification list during the period 1-4-1995 to 17-8-1995. He submitted that thereafter on 14-5-1995, a show cause notice was issued for modifying the C/List. After considering the submissions made by the applicants, the adjudicating authority vide order dated 6-12-1995 held that the goods manufactured by the applicants are held to be classifiable under Chapter Heading 7207.10. He submitted that the Asstt. Commissioner further held that the effective rate of duty in both the cases is 10% ad valorem, therefore, the question of differential duty does not arise. Ld. Consultant submitted that thereafter on 19-1-1996, again a show cause notice was issued to the applicants alleging that the applicants are not entitled for the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993. He submitted that in the earlier show cause notice, there was no demand on the ground that the applicants are not entitled for the benefit of SSI exemption notification. He further submitted that BIFR vide order dated 19-9-1997 held that the applicants’ company had become a sick industrial company in terms of Section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985. He therefore, prays that the amount of duty demanded in the order be stayed.
2. Shri A.M. Tilak, JDR appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that earlier the applicants were clearing the goods under provisional C/List. He submitted that in the impugned order dated 6-12-1996, the adjudicating authority held that the goods are to be classifiable u/h No. 7207.10. He further submitted that a corrigendum was issued on 19-1-1996 and in the corrigendum, it was specifically held that the effective rate of duty is 10% ad valorem in both the cases. The question of differential duty amount does not arise in case there is no impact of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993. He submitted that thereafter a demand was raised on the basis that the goods were classifiable under Chapter Heading 7207.10 and they are not entitled for SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. He further submitted that in the impugned order the demand was restricted to six months from the date of finalisation of the C/List. He therefore, prays that the application be dismissed.
3. Heard both sides. In this case, the applicants were clearing the goods under the approved classification list. If the goods were cleared under provisional approved C/List then the applicants are duty bound to furnish a bond. In this case, no such bond was furnished or demanded by the Revenue. In the show cause notice dated 14-9-1995, it is stated that by the earlier C/Lists dated 30-9-1993 approved on 17-1-1995, 8-9-1995 approved on 17-1-1995 (sic) and other C/List was approved on 7-4-1995 and the classification list dated 16-3-1995 was approved on the same date i.e. on 7-4-1995 may not be treated as approved provisionally.
4. In view of the above, I find force in the arguments of the applicants that the goods were cleared under approved classification lists. The classification of the goods was redetermined on 6-12-1995 and the goods were held to be classifiable under Chapter Heading 7207.10 of the Central Excise Tariff. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 19-1-1996 was issued. In this show cause notice, it is stated that the applicants were not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. and a demand was raised for the period of six months from 6-12-1995 hence prima facie, I find force in the plea of applicant that demand is partly time-barred.
5. In view of the above discussions and taking into account the financial hardship as the applicants’ company is declared as a sick industrial company, the deposit of the total duty amount is waived and the recovery of the same is stayed during the pendency of the appeal.
The appeal will come up for final hearing in due course.