9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an appeal in terms of Section 35-P(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 2. The issue in the present case is whether the product manufactured by the appellants was a Mosaic Tiles falling under Central Excise Tariff Item 23D as claimed by the appellants or a Chinaware and Porcelain ware falling under Tariff Item 23B as held by the Department. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, relating to this issue are that the appellants were served with a Show Cause Notice dated 6-10-1976 charging that they availed wrongful exemption under Notification No. 208/73 dated 13-12-1973 and No. 38/75 dated 1-3-1975 in respect of the value of goods cleared on production which were chargeable to duty and classifiable as Chinaware and Porcelain ware und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that issue of classification was decided by the Appellate Collector for the subsequent period in favour of the party classifying it as mosaic tile and that order has become final on point of classification as no appeal was filed against that order nor was reviewed. The impugned order was passed subsequent to the Appeal order and the adjudicating authority has taken a different view and deviated from the appellate authority in classifying the item in question without any cogent reasons. The Original Authority is bound by the decision of the appellate authority and it was not open for him to take different view when there is no change either in the manufacturing process or change in the Tariff entry in respect of the product in question. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed to this division or that. The purpose of their orders appears to be to classify the product under the heading which will attract the maximum duty irrespective of whether that is the proper classification or not and also without taking into account the decisions of the Tribunal or of the Appellate Collector. Discipline would require that they would be bound by it but the paramount discipline in the Excise Department appears to be to try to secure as such money as possible from the assessees and not to do what is right or correct or legal." He said that commodity was sold as mosaic tile as it was commercially known in the market as per explanation to Item 23D of the Tariff. Sufficient evidence was produced by the appellants to prove this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that Tribunal emphasised only on trade parlance in determining the classification in the case of Mridul Enterprises (supra), whereas the Adjudicating authority has classified the item based on declaration, description, meaning and contents of the product with available evidence. He reiterated the grounds adopted by the Collector while justifying the impugned order. 7. We have considered the arguments advanced on both sides and perused the records. On going through the impugned order it is evident that Collector mainly has proceeded to classify the item in question based on the declaration filed by the appellants at the first instance. There is no estoppel in law against a party in taxation matters for claiming change of classification as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
