9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. Shri A.V. Naik, Advocate argued the appeal. Shri Ashokan, represented the department. 2. The appellants manufactured sugar as also sugar cubes. In the classification list filed, sugar cubes were claimed to fall under sub-heading 1701.90. The benefit of Notification No. 15/89 was claimed. The Assistant Collector approved the classification as proposed by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being filed before us. 3. Shri Naik continues to submit that the conversion of sugar into sugar cubes did not amount to manufacture and that the Collector (Appeals) had erred in not permitting the issue to be raised before him. He cited the following orders before him. (i) D.C.M. Shriram Industries v. C.C.E., Meerut - 1996 (84) E.L.T. 221, (ii) Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. C.C.E., Hyderabad - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal before him. As rightly observed by him, the assessees had voluntarily filed the classification accepting the excisability of the cubes. During the course of any contest arising from it, they were precluded from raising the issue of excisability. Nothing prevented them from filing another classification showing this very product as not excisable. In fact Shri Naik states that subsequently the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
