9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )]. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the order-in-Appeal dated 11-2-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta. In para 6 (ii) of his order the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has held as under : The portion of the appeal relating to the confirmation of the demand of Rs. 3,88,821.00 demand of Rs. 379871.00 relating to two way keys c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 379871 raised on the product two ways keys cleared during the period 1-7-1984 to 24-10-1984. The respondents M/s. Ambica Metal Works had filed cross objections in which they have submitted that the order of the CCE(A), Calcutta was just, fair and equitable and it should be upheld by rejecting the Revenue s appeal. 3. We have heard Shri M. Jayaraman, ld. JDR and Shri Santhanam, ld. Consultant. Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... classification under Item No. 25(8) of the Tariff. The Department in the present proceedings had classified the products under Item No. 68. The respondents had not challenged the order on the issue of classification. In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Bhushan Industries Ltd. - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 569 (Tribunal) it had also been held that the two ways keys and cotters were clas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication of cotters had been raised neither by the appellants Revenue nor by the respondents. It is a very old matter in which period involved is 1-7-1984 to 24-10-1984 and the duty involved is Rs. 8550 only. 9. Taking all the relevant considerations into account we do not consider it to be a fit case for remand. 10. Taking all the relevant considerations into account the appeal filed by the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
