9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Member (J)]. The dispute in this appeal filed by the Revenue relates to classification of Vulcanising solution manufactured by the respondents herein, whether under CET sub-heading No. 4005.00 as claimed by the Revenue or under CET sub-heading No. 3506.00 as claimed by the manufacturers, and upheld by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed the demand and also classified the product - Vulcanising solution under sub-heading No. 4005.00 and denied the benefit of the Notification. Accordingly, he confirmed the demand for Rs. 15,916.52. On appeal, the lower, appellate authority set aside the Assistant Collector s order following the Tribunal s decision in the case of MRF Ltd. reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 604 = 1990 (29) ECC 315 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.30%, Resin 1.00% and S.B.P. Spirits 87.00%. The Tribunal had held that the product which contains apart from the above contents, (rubber compound and solvent), sulphur, carbon black, stearic acid, zinc oxide, fillers and answers to the description of rubber based adhesives compound and is correctly classifiable as glue under Heading No. 35.06. The Tribunal ruled-out classification under Heading ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al against the Tribunal s decision reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 604 to the Hon ble Supreme Court. Further, we find that the Supreme Court has by its Order reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.) upheld the order of the Tribunal on classification and rejected the Revenue s appeal. 5. We, therefore, hold that the ratio of the decisions in the case of Elgi Polytex and MRF (which has been upheld by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
