AR.LAKSHMANAN, J. - (1.) THE above appeal was filed against the final order No. 821/99-C dated 17.08.1999 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter called "the Tribunal") in Appeal No. E/4487/93-C.
(2.) THE appellants are a small-scale unit engaged in the manufacture of various grades of acrylic polymers, namely, Synocure 867S, Synocure 823S, Synocure 862X and Synocure 868. The appellants had filed three classification lists bearing no. 1/90-91 dated 03.04.1990, 4/90-91 dated 10.04.1990 and 6/90-91 dated 05.06.1990 respectively classifying the aforesaid products as acrylic polymers in primary form under Chapter Sub-heading 3906.90 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 claiming concessional rate of duty @ 40% ad valorem in terms of Sr. No. 42 of the schedule to the notification No. 53/88 dated 01.03.1988. The appellants, vide their letter dated 11.10.1990, addressed to the Assistant Collector submitted that there was a clerical error in filing the aforesaid classification lists and the correct rate of duty should have been @ 20% ad valorem in terms of Sr. No. 9 of the schedule to the notification No. 53/88 dated 01.03.1988. The appellants also filed a revised classification list No. 9/90-91 dated 17.10.1990 in respect of the above products. In the revised classification list Sr. No. 9 to the notification 53/88 dated 01.03.1988 was claimed contending that the products are emulsions. The revised classification list filed by the appellants on 17.10.1990 was approved by the jurisdictional Assistant Collector on 25.10.1990 i.e. within a period of 8 days. The appellants declared the above products as emulsions in their revised classification list with intent to avail the lower concessional rate of duty @ 20% ad valorem. A show-cause notice dated 03.01.1992 was issued to the appellants alleging that the revised classification list was not in accordance with the circumstances as stated in Rule 173 B (4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The show-cause notice alleged collusion between the Assistant Collector, who approved the revised classification list on 25.10.1990 and the appellants. The show-cause notice further proposed to demand a differential duty of Rs. 9,95,928/- for the period 27.10.1990 to 04.12.1991 by invoking the extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A proposal was also made to confiscate the iand, building, plant and machinery under Rule 173 Q (2) of the Rules.
(3.) THE Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-Ill adjudicated the show-cause notice vide order dated 19.05.1993 confirming the demand of Rs. 9,95,928/- and a penalty of Rs. 10 lacs. The building, land, plant and machinery were also confiscated with an option to redeem the same on payment of Rs. 5 lacs. Being aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise, the appellants filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which disposed of the said appeal vide its final order dated 17.08.1999 modifying the impugned order in original to the extent of reduction of penalty from Rs. 10 lacs to Rs. 5 lacs. Being aggrieved by the above order of the Tribunal, the appellants have filed the present civil appeal before this Court.;