ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the inflatable rubber raft manufactured by the appellant and consequent liability to duty. The goods have been classified under heading 8907.00 of the Tariff by the department. The classification claimed, by the assessee is under 8906.00.
2. Heading 8906.00 covers “Other vessels, including warships and lifeboats other than rowing boats”. Heading 8907.00 is for “other floating structures for e.g. rafts, tanks, coffer-dams, landing stages, buoys and beacons”. Sub-heading 10 of this heading is for inflatable rafts and it is under this sub-heading that the goods have been classified. The appellant supports its claim for its classification by a certificate dated 8-7-92 of the Mercantile Marine Department. The nautical surveyor who has signed the certificate says life raft is a kind of vessel or life boats. The Explanatory notes to Harmonized System of Nomenclature classify certain floating structure not having the character of vessel, in the heading 8907.00. Inflatable rafts are specified as floating structure under this heading at page 1454. It is not disputed that the goods in question are inflatable raft and therefore has been correctly classified under 8907.00.
3. The two notices issued to the appellant are dated 28-5-92 proposing recovery of duty of goods cleared between February and May, 1992, and 10-2-93 for clearance from September, 1992 to January, 1993. It is only by the notice dated 28-5-92 the classification was proposed to be reversed. Any demand for clearance prior to this date therefore would not be sustainable in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the CCE v. Cotspun Ltd., 1999 (113) E.L.T. 353.
4. The notice dated 28-5-92 therefore cannot be maintained. The notice dated 10-2-93 could be maintained because it is for a later period which is the period covered by the date of the earlier notice, by which the appellant has been issued notice that the classification earlier arrived was not approved. The order is maintainable to the extent of the duty demanded by the notice.
5. The appeal is therefore allowed in part. Consequential relief, if permitted by law.