- (1.) We are concerned in this appeal against an order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate tribunal ("the tribunal") with a commodity called frit, which is manufactured by the appellants.
(2.) With the introduction into Tariff Item 23-A (4 of the words "glass and", it read "other glass and glassware including tableware". The Collector of central Excise issued to the appellants a notice under Section 35-A of the central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on 4/11/1981, asking them to show cause why frit should not be classified under sub-item (4 of Item 23-A with effect from 1/3/19799, and the order of the Assistant Collector accepting that classification under the general Item 68 be revised accordingly. The appellants showed cause. The Collector by his order dated 3/12/1981 made the notice absolute. He set aside the Assistant Collector's order. He ordered that frit "is hereby classified as other glass falling within the purview of Item 23-A (4 of the First Schedule". He further ordered that the appellants "shall pay the duty of excise at the appropriate leviable rate on frit glass manufactured and cleared by them as applicable to Item 23-A (4 of the said First Schedule or the difference in duty, as the case may be".
(3.) The appellants preferred a revision application to the central government which came to be transferred to the tribunal when it was constituted. The tribunal considered the evidence that had been placed on record by the appellants and upheld the classification of frit as "other glass" within the meaning of Item 23-A (4. It was contended before the tribunal that no notice had been issued to the appellants in regard to the recovery of any short-levied duty pursuant to such reclassification and that, therefore, no demand in this behalf could have been made or sustained. The tribunal stated that the show- cause notice dated 4/11/1981, no doubt, did not, in terms, ask the appellants to show cause why recovery of the short-levied duty should not be made, but, once the Collector came to the conclusion and ordered the reclassification of frit under Item 23-A (4, he was right in demanding the payment of differential duty. However, the recovery thereof could be made only in respect of the period of six months precedhtg the date of the order, i. e. , 30/4/1982, as determined with regard to the provisions of Rule 11 or Section 11-A. The Excise authorities were directed to recalculate the amount of the short levy in the light of the tribunal's order and communicate the appropriate figure to the appellants.;