9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (2) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeals, the issue related to classification of soft capillary glass tubings and bulb glass tubings under the Central Excise Tariff, which the department had classified under Item 23A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff whereas appellants were seeking classification under Central Excise Tariff Item 23A(2), there was a difference in the facts of the three appeals, inasmuch as the consignment covered by the first appeal No. 151/82-D was imported on 14th December, 1978 and the consignments in the other two appeals No. 1420/86-D and 1421/86-D were imported after 1st March, 1979, i.e. subsequent to relevant amendment of Item 23A of Central Excise Tariff which has been discussed in the judgment. At the time when goods in appeal No. 151/82-D were im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly exempt from payment of duty at the material time by virtue of Notification No. 364-Cus/76, dated 2-8-1976. It is also submitted that demand of duty in respect of the matter in appeal No. 151/82-D was hit by time bar and the appeal deserved to be allowed on this ground too. 2. Additionally, it is urged that appellant should get refund of the duty paid, both as a result of the demand and the amount already paid on the goods as laboratory glassware at the time of their clearance. 3. In the light of the above position, it is said that the appeals other than appeal No. 151/82-D deserved to be rejected and not partly allowed, as ordered by the Tribunal, since the imports related to post 1-3-1979 period, when the description other glass w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt on notice thereof is not legally tenable and consequently the demand in terms of Section 11 A is not sustainable in law. 5. Shri Mehta also referred to the order of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Kamlesh Seth of M/s. L.P.Q.R. Indian Jewellery Trading Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi - 1987 (28) E.L.T. 407 (Tri.) = 1987 (10) E.C.R. 271 (Cegat) in which the earlier order of the Tribunal was amended holding that consequential relief by way of refund of amount of redemption fine covering the impugned goods shall have been a part of the order but was inadvertantly omitted. The earlier order was accordingly amended. 6. Shri K.C. Sachar, learned JDR has stated that it has not been shown that there has been any mistake in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of Appeal No. 151/82-D is hit by time bar, Shri Mehta made this claim but this was not substantiated by reference to specific date of issue of show cause notice and the date on which duties had been actually paid. For this reason, Shri K.C. Sachar, JDR, while responding, said that this point will have to be considered as un-substantiated and that he was unable to make any comments. We agree that the plea of time bar, in the circumstances, has to be considered as un-substantiated and, therefore, rejected. The three Revision Applications, treated as appeals before us, are disposed of in the above terms. 8. While ordering the above amendment of our judgment, we would like to make the following observations as regards the other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
