SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S.P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde and Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.

CA No. 9049-51/1996. D/d. 17.4.2002.

Collector Of Central Excise, Ahmedabad - Appellant

Versus

Maheshwari Mills Ltd. - Respondent

Central Excise Act, 1944, Sections 3 and 11A- Central Excise Rules, 1944 Rule 173-B- Demand notice, demanding duty cannot issued on a basis other than the approved in classification list without seeking to vary the classification list- There is no estoppel against seeking to take a different view from that taken in approved classification list. 38 ELT 571 and 35 ELT 349 relied.

[Para 2]

Cases Referred :-

Union of India v. Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd., 1988(*) AIR (SC) 1236 : (35 E.L.T. 349).

Elson Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1989(*) AIR (SC) 617 : (38 E.L.T. 571).

ORDER

S.P. Bharucha, J. - We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue (Appellant) and find that the order of the Tribunal is correct. Reliance has rightly been placed, given the facts, upon the judgment of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. (35 E.L.T. 349).

2. Our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the appellant to the judgment of this Court in Elson Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (38 E.L.T. 571) and it is submitted that a different view has been taken'lherein. We do not think so. The latter judgment only says that there is no estoppel against seeking to take a different view from that taken in an approved classification list. But that judgment does not say that a demand notice can be issued demanding duty on a basis other than that approved in the classification list without seeking to vary the classification list.

3. The appeals are dismissed.

4. No order as to costs.

Appeals dismissed.