9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as claimed by them. 2. Shri S.K. Bansal, learned Advocate, submitted that the classification of Roller Assembly was approved by the Department under Heading 85.04 up to February, 1993; that in their classification lists effective from 1-3-1993 and 1-3-1994, they classified the impugned product under Heading 87.16 which was revised by them to Heading No. 85.04; that in the classification lists effective from 1-4-1994 and 16-3-1995, they had classified their product under Heading 85.04; that similar goods manufactured by other assessees were classified under Heading 85.04. The Learned Advocate further submitted that the roller assembly is specially designed to be fitted on the base of the transformers for the case of installation at site; t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Department proposed to classify the goods; that the Assistant Collector under letter dated 31-3-1995 expressed his opinion that product would be classifiable under Heading 84.85 of the Tariff whereas in the Adjudication Order, he classified the impugned product under Heading 86.07. He also relied upon the decision in the case of CCE, Vadodara v. M/s Cotspun Ltd., 1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) and contended that no demand can be made from the appellants prior to the date of issue of the notice as the classification list was approved by the Competent Authority. 3. Countering the arguments, Shri R.K. Sharma, learned S.D.R., submitted that Heading 86.07, as per Note 2 to Chapter 86 of C.E.T.A., applies to axles, wheels, wheels set (running ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned product can not be classified under Heading No. 85.04 as it is not a part of the transformer. The Assistant Commissioner has given his clear findings in the Adjudication Order while classifying the impugned product under Heading 86.07 and we do not find any reason to differ with the same. There is no substance in the contention of the Learned Advocate that no Tariff heading was mentioned in the Show cause notice as the Appellants were put on notice about classifying the impunged product under Heading 86.07 as the assesee s Advocate made the submissions at the time of hearing on 13-10-1995 before the Assistant Collector as to how the impugned goods cannot be classified under Heading 86.07. The ratio of the Cotspun s case is not ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
