2000 (10) TMI 390 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Duty demand on fancy/special yarn
- Classification under Heading 56.06 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985
- Penalty under Section 11-AC of the Central Excise Act
- Jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner
- Validity and enforceability of the demand

Analysis:
The appeal in question pertains to a duty demand of Rs. 69,59,384/- on fancy/special yarn manufactured by the appellants during 1992-93 to 1994-95, classified under Heading 56.06 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985, with an imposed penalty under Section 11-AC of the Central Excise Act. The Assistant Commissioner initially dropped the demand and accepted the classification under Chapter 51 as claimed by the assessees. However, a corrigendum was later issued, stating that the demand notice was included inadvertently and not adjudicated. The Revenue challenged this corrigendum, questioning the Assistant Commissioner's authority to review his own order and disputing the classification of the yarn under Chapter 51. The Commissioner (Appeals) subsequently upheld the classification under Chapter 51, confirming the earlier adjudication order. The appellants argued that the demand was not sustainable as it had been set aside by the Assistant Commissioner's previous order and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Citing the case of Shiv Chander Kapoor v. Amar Bose, the Tribunal emphasized that an order remains enforceable unless challenged through legal proceedings to establish its invalidity. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the demand cannot be enforced against the appellants and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.