9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (11) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion that Appellate Collector of Central Excise decided otherwise in 1982 and therefore the Department is not to alter the classification for all subsequent periods unless there is a change in tariff cannot be accepted because apparently the order of the Collector (Appeals) was wrong in as much as the order of the ld. M.P. High Court has to take precedence over the order of the Appellate Collector. However, the two classification lists covered by the Appellate Collector s have not been altered by the Asstt. Collector and in view of the Trade Notice issued by the Collector and for the reasons stated by me above, the Asstt. Collector is correct in deciding that the impugned goods are classifiable under T.I. 23-B of Central Excise Tariff. I ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... items are considered as Porcelainware correctly falling under Tariff Item 23-B of the then Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector also confirmed the demand of differential duty amounting to Rs. 48,911.06. Against this order, of the Assistant Collector, the appellant went in appeal to the Collector ( Appeals), the orders of Collector (Appeals) are reproduced above. 3. No one appeared for the appellants when the case was posted for hearing. However, there was a request that their case may be decided on merits on the basis of written arguments dtd. 22-8-1994. In the written arguments the appellants contended that the Collector (Appeals) passed an order-in-appeal dt. 26-8-1982 stating that Stoneware unglazed items are to be classifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld to be classifiable under the then Tariff Item 68. 4. Sh. R.K. Kapoor, the ld. SDR appearing for the respondent submitted that the Assistant Collector has relied on the clarification given by the Board under the Tariff Advice No. 22/75. The ld. SDR also referred to Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment and pointed out that Rasching Ring classification was considered by the Hon ble High Court which held in most unambiguous terms that Rasching Rings are classifiable under the then Tariff Item 23-B(4). The ld. SDR therefore submitted that not only Rasching Ring but Intalox Saddles being also made of Porcelainware and was of the same category, should be classified under the then Tariff Item 23-B. The ld. SDR, therefore, prayed that the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der passed by the Assistant Collector does not suffer from any infirmity. 6. The second issue which has been contested by the appellant is that the goods were not Porcelainware but were Stoneware. Before deciding on this issue we would like to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the order of the Hon ble M.P. High Court in the case of Saurabh Batteries Ceramics v. CCE, New Delhi reported in 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 29). The Hon ble Court had held :- 5. It is the petitioner s contention that it manufactures rasching rings, which are unglazed material. We may observe that the test of glazed or unglazed of where Chinaware is concerned. The Explanation to Item 22-B, pertains to Chinaware only and not to porcelainware. Porcelainware, which does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
