- (1.) This appeal is against the Judgement dated 19-11-1999 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). The respondents have been served but have remained absent. This appeal has, therefore, been set down for hearing ex parte as against the respondents. On seizure of the goods at various places and on the basis of visit by the officers, the show-cause notice was issued to the respondents claiming differential duty on glass cleared by the respondents as it was found that in the classification list it was shown that the glass cleared and sold by the respondents was of a particular thickness whereas what was actually cleared and sold was glass of a greater thickness. The thicker glass fell into a different tariff item and higher duty was payable on it. Therefore, differential duty and penalty were claimed.
(2.) The Collector confirmed the duty and penalty. CEGAT also held on all points in favour of the Department. However, CEGAT felt constrained by the Constitution Bench Judgement of this Court in the case of CCE V/s. Cotspun Ltd. In this case, it is held that once there is an approved classification list, it remains effective till the correctness of that list is challenged by a show-cause notice. It has been held that any duty levied on the basis of such list, preceding the show-cause notice would be the correct duty and cannot be considered to be a short-levied one. CEGAT held that in view of this decision unless the correctness of the classification list was challenged by a show- cause notice the demand for differential duty and penalty could not be justified.
(3.) It must be mentioned that after this Judgement by the Finance Act, 2000 , Section 11-A has been amended. This amendment effectually negates the principle laid down in Cotspun case. This Court in the case of Easland Combines V/s. CCE has held, on the basis of the amended Section 11-A that differential duty could be demanded. We are informed, across the Bar, that the correctness of the decision in Easland Combines case has been doubted by another two-Judge Bench of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 7868 of 1995. We are told that the question has been referred to a larger Bench.;