9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. In this appeal the issue involved is whether the Assistant Collector had power to review the classification list of the assessee after having once approved the same. 2. The facts giving rise to this may briefly be stated as under : 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of toughened glass and solar cooker/collector parts. They classified thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... version and dropped the proceedings against them. 5. The Revenue went in appeal against the said order of the Assistant Collector but the Collector (Appeals) affirmed the order of the Assistant Collector and rejected their appeal. 6. Feeling dissatisfied with this order of the Collector (Appeals), the Revenue has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. None has come present on behalf of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoked in such a situation. The authority has power to correct the error appearing on the face of its earlier order. There the doctrine of estoppel also cannot be invoked in such a case as no estoppel against law can be legally pleaded by any one. In this context reference be made to Apex Court s observations in Keshav Mills v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay, 1965 (2) SCR 908 (SC) wherein it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause notice was issued to the appellants for changing the classification of the product, on the ground it had been earlier wrongly classified under Chapter Heading 72.19, while it was classifiable under sub-heading 7004.90 of the Tariff. He was competent to reopen the classification issue and decide the same afresh and also demand the differential duty as per law. He should not have avoided to exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
