9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retrospectively? (iii)Whether products are classifiable under 8547.00 or 3926.90? (iv)Can clearances of 2 units be clubbed? (v)Is demand on RT 12s maintainable? (vi)Exact value of clearances even if clubbed. 2. On the first question, the appellants have submitted that the classification list had been approved by the department and they could not be reviewed and therefore, the power of review must be conferred expressly or by necessary implication by the provisions of statute and the Central Excises Salt Act and the Rules made thereunder. On the second issue i.e. whether classification lists can be challenged retrospectively, they point out that the Tribunal has committed a mistake on the issue also. Citing several judgments, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f two units cannot be clubbed and that the Tribunal has committed a mistake even on this ground. On the 5th issue also they submit that the Tribunal has committed a mistake in holding that there is suppression of facts, while their case is that there was no suppression of facts as the goods had been cleared against approved classification lists after following due process of law and as per settled law, the demand, if any, cannot be raised on R.T.12s by the Superintendent and that too for extended period. On the last ground, they also submit that the Tribunal has committed an error with regard to the valuation of clearances made by them. 3. We have heard Shri J.S.Agarwal, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri Somesh Arora, ld. JDR for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven an independent finding that the goods are classifiable under Heading 85.47. The Tribunal had also gone through the Explanatory Note to HSN before coming to the conclusion on the issue of classification of the product. The judgment pertaining to CCE v. Denson Engineers as reported in 1991 (52) E.L.T. 296 (Tribunal) = 1991 (34) ECR 97 had also been examined. Besides the ratio cited by the appellants in the case of Partap Rajasthan Copper Foils and Laminates Ltd. v. CCE as reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 775 and thereafter has clearly given a finding that these rulings do not be applied squarely to the facts of the present case, as it does not involve the question of levy of duty on the Epoxy Resin mixed with fillers but on the Cast Component ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der as held by the Collector (Appeals), the Tribunal has accepted the JDR s contention that the issue is covered by the judgment of Delhi High Court as in the case of Bawa Potteries v. UOI and Another reported in 1981 (8) E.L.T. 114. On this point also, we notice that there is no error apparent on record requiring rectification. 7. As regards the last question considered by the Tribunal pertaining to the effective date of the changed classification, it is noticed that the Tribunal has given a reasoned order and has held if these goods were wrongly held as exempted, in the past, though the recovery of duty short levied may be affected due to the provisions of Section 11A, their value cannot be excluded, as in the view of the Bombay High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
