ORDER
V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
1. The issue involved in this appeal preferred by Revenue is whether the approved classification can be revised with retrospective effect.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. Dalai Plastic Corporation, manufacture plastic parts of pressure cookers which were classified by them under sub-heading 7321.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act in their classification list No. 1/92-93 effective from 1-4-1992. The classification list was approved by the proper officer. Subsequently in C.L. No. 2/92-93, dated 16-12-1992 the appellants clasified the impugned products under sub-heading 7615.10 which was also approved by the proper officer. Subsequently they filed an appeal with the Collector (Appeals) to revise the classification of their products with effect from 1-4-1992. The Collector (Appeals), under the impugned order, had set aside the approval of the classification list of parts of pressure cooker under sub-heading 7321.90 under C.L. No. 1 /92-9S holding that the classification of parts under sub-heading 7615.10 had already been accepted by the Department in respect of C.L. No. 2/92-93.
3. Shri H.K. Jain, learned SDR, submitted that classification list No. 1/92-93 was approved by the Assistant Collector on 10-11-1992. Once the classification list has been approved, it can be revised only prospectively and the revision in the classification of the goods manufactured by them cannot be effected retrospectively. He relied on the decision in the case of Veekay General Industry v. C.C.E., New Delhi 1997 (94) E.L.T. 191 (T).
3.2 He further submitted that the Collector (Appeals) erred in allowing the exemption under Notification No. 180/98, dated 13-5-1988 since the exemption at Serial No. 20 of the notification was applicable to table, kitchen or other household articles and parts thereof made of aluminium only falling under sub-heading 7615.10; that in Notification No. 181/88, dated 13-5-1988 pressure cookers and parts thereof are specifically mentioned at Serial Nos. 9, 10 and 10A of the Table appended to the notification; that Serial No. 10A of the Table exempts parts of pressure cookers, other than those specified at Serial No. 10 and falling under Chapter Nos. 39, 40, 73, 74 or 76 provided the parts are used in the manufacture of pressure cookers and if used elsewhere than the factory of production, Chapter X procedure is followed. He also mentioned that pressure cookers and parts falling under Chapters 39,40,73 and 76 are all covered under Notification 181/88 and not under 180/88 as this notification is specifically meant for aluminium articles; that parts which are sold as spares are liable for Central Excise duty.
4. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents. M/s. Dalai Plastic Corporation, however, have submitted written submissions under their letter dated 28-9-1998 in addition to the cross-objection filed earlier. They have submitted that Collector (Appeals) decided the classification of plastic parts of pressure cooker under sub-heading 7615.10 with exemption under Notification No. 180/88; that from 1-3-1992, all the parts of the pressure cookers are exempted from payment of duty unconditionally and hence following of Chapter X procedure does not arise. They relied upon the decision in the case of C.C.E. v. Balraj Papers & Straw Board Mills (P) Limited 1990 (47) E.L.T. 139 (T) in which it was held that when exemption is available simultaneously under two notifications, benefit is not restrictible to one notification and contended that Notification No. 180/88 being more beneficial was availed of by them. Alternatively they have contended that non-following the procedure specified in Chapter X would not make them ineligible for the benefit of Notification No. 181/88 as held in the case of C.C.E. v. Suburban Engineering Works, 1991 (56) E.L.T. 470 (T). They had also enclosed with cross-objection a certificate dated 4-2-1994 from M/s. Hawkins Cookers Limited to the effect that parts supplied by them were used in the manufacture of aluminium pressure cookers. They have also submitted that in the present appeal, filed by the Revenue, the challange is against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals) and as Revenue had not filed any appeal against approval of Classification List No. 2/92-93, the said C.L. had attained finality and the same cannot be set aside now as requested by the Department in the present appeal. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the cases of ESPI Industries & Chemicals Pvt. Limited v. C.C.E., 1996 (82) E.L.T. 444 (S.C.) and Veekay Gen. Industry v. C.C.E., 1997 (94) E.L.T. 191 (T).
5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We observe that undisputed fact is that the appellants themselves had classified the plastic parts of pressure cooker under sub-heading 7321.90 in Classification List No. 1/92-93. The proper officer approved the classification list as such and accordingly the goods were cleared by the appellants. An appeal under the Central Excise Act can he filed by an aggrieved party and as in respect of classification List No. 1/92-93, the Department had approved the C.L. as per the claim of the appellant and they are not aggrieved person under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. The classification list cannot be revised retrospectively in the normal course; And the revision in classification can be sought only prospectively by the assessee in a case covered under Rule 173B(4) where the proper officer has approved the classification of the goods as claimed by the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the valuation of the excisable goods in the case of MRF Limited v. C.C.E., Madras, 1997 (92) E.L.T. 309 (S.C.) held that once the assessee has cleared the goods on the classification & price indicated by him at the time of the removal of the goods from the factory gate, the assessee becomes liable to payment of duty on that date and time and subsequent reduction in prices whatsoever cannot be a matter of concern to the Department in so far as liability to payment of duty is concerned. In view of this, we hold that the Collector (Appeals) was not justified in changing the classification of the product retrospectively. We also observe that both Headings 73.21 and 76.15 are applicable to various products, mentioned therein of iron or steel and aluminium respectively and not to the products made of plastic which are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. As Notification No. 180/88s, dated 13-5-1988 (Serial No. 20) provides nil rate of duty in respect of ‘Table, kitchen or other household articles and parts thereof falling under sub-heading 7615.10, the same is not available to the appellants since their goods were not classified under that sub-heading. We find that Notification No. 181/88, dated 13-5-1988 (SI. No. 10A) exempts parts of pressure cookers, other than those specified at SI. No. 10 above subject to the condition that the parts are used in the manufacture of the pressure cooker and Chapter X procedure is followed in case the use is elsewhere than in the factory of production. Irrespective of the fact of classification of parts of pressure cooker, manufactured by the respondents, the parts will be exempted if they fulfil the conditions specified in the notification since entry at Serial No. 10A of the Notification No. 181 /88 refers to parts of pressure cooker (other than cooker body with or without handle, lid with or without handle, and vent weight) classifiable under Chapters 39, 40, 73, 74 or 76 of the CETA. This aspect has not been examined by both the lower authorities. We, therefore, remand the matter to the Jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner to examine the availability of the benefit of entry at Serial No. 10A of the Notification No. 181/88, dated 13-5-1988 after affording a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the respondents. Both the appeal and cross-objections are disposed of in above terms.