9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l should not be granted to the said list modifying the abovesaid item as falling under TI 16B(ii) CET. They replied reiterating their contention that the same was non-excisable. By order dated 5-8-1978 the Assistant Collector overruled their objection and ordered approval of the classification list with the modification as proposed. The respondents went up in appeal to the Appellate Collector of Central Excise Calcutta. From the order of the Appellate Collector dated 9-4-1981 it transpires that following the order of the Assistant Collector dated 5-8-1978 a show cause-cum-demand had been issued on 10-11-1978 in respect of goods, cleared from 1-12-1977 to 31-5-1978..The order on the classification list as well as this demand were evidently c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand for duty being time barred, these two issues having been separately dealt with by the Assistant Collector. The order of the Appellate Collector is dated 9-4-1981. The review notice was issued on 28-1-1982. In the circumstances Shri Sachar himself did not dispute that, for the reasons mentioned in the decision, of this Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise Bombay v. Shiv Kumar Ashok Kumar (1986 (26) E.L.T. 947) the review notice would be barred by time so far as that part of it which dealt with the demand for duty. Hence the review notice has to be necessarily discharged in respect of that portion for the reason that the same was barred by time in terms of the third proviso to-Section36(2). 4. The goods in question are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e battens running at right angles to that of the adjacent outer veneer" The Appellate Collector held that before being cut to round shape and hole is punched therein the product (at that intermediate stage) may have qualified as a veneered block board, but that after being cut into round shape and the hole is punched it would not continue to be veneered block board only but would be known as a veneered flange as claimed by the respondents. It may be noted that in the original show cause notice dated 8-6-78 no reasons at all has been given why the product would be classifiable under TI 16B(ii). In their reply the respondents had contended that the same would not fall within the definition of ply wood. since they were evidently under the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
