Full Judgment
2. Shri M.S. Jagesha, learned Advocate submitted that the appellant M/s. Assotex Engineering Industries Ltd. are manufacturing certain products which were classified by them under heading 7308.90 and 7413.90 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Their classification list was approved and subsequently a show cause notice was issued for classifying the product under Heading 84.83 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and demanding differential duty. He placed the reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. Cotspun Limited, reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) in which it was held that the demand for differential duty can be made only from the date of issuance of show cause notice.
3. Shri Ashok Kumar, learned Departmental Representative submitted that the effect of the decision in the case of Cotspun Limited (Supra) has been taken away by Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 which provides as under: "Section 110. Validation of action taken under section 11A of Act 1 of 1944 (1) Any notice issued or served on any person under the provisions of section 11A of the Central Excise Act during the period commencing on and from the 17th day of November, 1980 and ending on the date on which the Finance Act, 2000 receives the assent of the President (hereinafter referred to as the said period) demanding duty on account of non-payment, short payment, non-levy, short levy or erroneous refund within a period of six months or five years, as the case may be, from the relevant date as defined in Clause (ii) of Sub-section (3) of that section, shall be deemed to be, and to always have been for, all purposes, validly and effectively issued or served under that section, notwithstanding any approval, acceptance or assessment relating to the rate of duty on or value of, the excisable goods by any Central Excise Officer under any other provision of the Central Excise Act or the rules made thereunder.
(2) Any action taken or anything done or purporting to have been taken or done under section 11A of the Central Excise Act at any time during the said period shall be deemed to be and to have always been, for all purposes, as validly and effectively taken or done as if Sub-section (1) had been in force at all material times and, accordingly, notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority,- (a) all duties of excise levied, assessed or collected during the period specified in Sub-section (1) on any excisable goods under the Central Excise Act, shall be deemed to be and shall be deemed to always have been, as validly levied, assessed or collected as if Sub-section (1) had been in force at all material times; (b) no suit or other proceedings shall be maintained or continued in any court, tribunal or other authority for the refund of, and no enforcement shall be made by any court of any decree or order directing the refund of any such duties of excise which have been collected and which would have been validly collected if Sub-section (1) had been in force at all material times; (c) recovery shall be made of all such duties of excise which have not been collected or, as the case may be, which have been refunded but which would have been collected or, as the case may be, would not have been refunded, if Sub-section (1) had been in force at all material times.
Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no act or omission on the part of any person shall be punishable as an offence which would not have been so punishable if this section had not come into force." He further mentioned that the provisions of this Section has been given retrospective effect and as such the demand is enforceable.
4. After considering the submissions of both the sides, we find that the provisions of Section 110 of Finance Act, 2000 clearly provides that the demand for differential duty can be raised even after approval of classification list for the past period and these provisions have been given retrospective effect by the Parliament.
5. In view of this, the demand of Central Excise duty is sustainable and accordingly, the appeal is rejected.