ORDER
Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Dalmia Industries Ltd., the matter related to the classification of floor sweepings. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kota, in Para 2 of his order had held as under :-
2. The classification list w.e.f. 1-3-1989 in respect of “Floor Sweeping” had been approved, under sub-heading No. 0401.13; chargeable to Central Excise duty @ 10% ad valorem vide Div. classification list No. 83/89. Accordingly, the classification now submitted by you on 12-10-1989 in the Range Office cannot be approved from a retrospective date. You are further advised to pay Central Excise duty as per approved classification list.
2. On appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi observed that the appeal was not filed within time and that the appeal was also not maintainable.
3. Ms. Rohna Nath, Advocate submitted that the appeal was filed within time and that on merit also no duty was leviable on floor sweeping as has been held by the Tribunal in a number of decisions.
4. In reply, Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR submitted that the goods had been cleared by the appellants under a valid approved classification list, which was valid from 1-3-1989. On 12-10-1989, they submitted a revised classification list and wanted that it to be given retrospective effect which was not permissible under the law.
5. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that Vide classification list No. 83/89 the goods – floor sweeping had been classified under sub-heading No. 0401.13. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kota observed that classification could not be approved from a retrospective date.
6. Although we find that the appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) was filed in time and to that extent, the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) is not sustainable but on merits, we find that the appellants had no case. We have already given above extracts from the letter dated 22-12-1989 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kota. We agree with his view that the new classification list filed by the appellants from 12-10-1989 could not be given effect to from 12-10-1989 (sic) when the classification had already been approved. The ld. Advocate, Ms. Rohna Nath, mentioned that they had separately challenged this classification which is the subject matter of different proceedings with which we are not concerned in this matter.
7. The matter relates to, the year 1989.
8. Taking all the relevant facts and considerations into account, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is rejected. Ordered accordingly.