ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 242/89(B) dated 31.10.1989 confirming Order-in-Original which pertained to classification of Radiator cores manufactured out of Copper, Copyer Alloy strips and lead tin solder. Appellants were supplying these radiators as parts of motor vehicle under chapter heading 87.08 and also specifically manufactured the same as parts of Earth Moving and other equipments for classification under heading 84.31.
2. The Revenue issued show cause notices raising demands for the period 1986-87 and 1988-89. The Assistant Collector in the Order-in-adjudicated in respect of these periods only and there was no adjudication for the period 1987-88 as there was an approved classification for that period and the Revenue had not contested the classification which had been adopted by the department for the period 1987-88. After the Order-in-Original was passed the Superintendent of Central Excise raised demands computing the duty which is required to be paid by the assessee in terms of show cause notice and also an adjudication order of the Assistant Collector. While doing so, he has also included the demands which had not been raised in the show cause notice which is for the period 1987-88. Therefore, appellants are contesting in this appeal only with regard to computation of demands for the period 1987-88 which was not the subject matter of show cause notice or order-in-original.
3. Heard Ld. Advocate who submits that he would be satisfied if the computation order issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise in the form of Demand Notice dated 21.2.1989 is modified to say that demands for the period 1987-88 cannot be raised as there was no adjudication on the same and also there was no show cause notice with regard to this period.
4. Heard Learned JDR.
5. On careful consideration of the submissions, we notice that appellants have not raised any contest with regard to classification of the impugned goods under chapter 87.08 for the period 1986-87 and 1988-89. The only ground prayed now is that duty has to be computed only for the period 1986-87 and 1988-89 and no demand can be raised in terms of order-in-original and show cause notices by the Superintendent in respect of period 1987-88 as there was no adjudication and there was an approved classification list.
6. We have gone through the records and are satisfied with the submissions made by the Learned Advocate. We notice that the order-in-original pertained to two periods i.e. 1986-88 and 1988-89. For the period 1.3.1988 and 1.4.1988 show cause notice dated 12.7.1988 was issued by the Assistant Collector. In the Order-in-Original, the Assistant Collector while adjudicating this show cause notice also took-up the matter which had been remanded to Collector (Appeals) with regard to period 1.3.1986, 25.3.1986 and 1.4.1986. Therefore, from the order-in-original it is very clear that no adjudication has taken place for demands pertaining to 1987-88 and therefore the computation of duty arrived at by Superintendent of Central Excise by his demand notice dated 21.2.1989 which is as a result of Assistant Collector’s adjudication order and also no demand is raised under Section 11A. Neither does it stems out from order-in-original passed under Section 11A. Therefore the demands which are required to be confirmed should be only for the period 1986-87 and 1988-89 which is in terms of Order-in-original.
7. We clarify that Revenue cannot raise any demands for the period 1987-88 as there was no adjudication by issue of any show cause notice under Section 11A. The appeal is allowed only to this extent with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court).