9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J)]. The appellants filed this appeal against the order dated 2-1-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Arc Electrodes. The appellants filed a classification list effective from 27-9-1989 claiming the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. dated 1-3-1986. The classification li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made for the past period as the appellants were clearing the goods under the approved classification list. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E. v. Cotspun Limited reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) and submits that in this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that levy of excise duty on the basis of approved classification list is the correct levy, at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f notification, but only asking for the rate of duty as mentioned in the notification. He, therefore, submits that the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cotspun Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the appellants, is not applicable. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be dismissed. 5. Heard both sides. 6. In this case the appellants have filed classification list claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cisable goods shall not be less than an amount calculated at the rate of 5%. 8. In the present matter the rate of duty leviable under tariff was 20% on the central excise goods manufactured by the appellants. As per Notification No. 175/86 the rate of duty payable by him was 20% minus 10% i.e. 10% duty instead of which they have paid duty only at the rate of 5%. The differential duty demanded by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
