9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd and consequently vide No. 250 R/92 dated 28-12-1992 passed by the Member Central Board, the impugned order was sought to be appealed against on the issue of classification of the product Penetrator 4893. While the Revenue claims classification under 3801.90, the order impugned had classified it under chapter 34 as organic surface active agent preparation. 2. Heard Shri S. Sankaravadivelu, learned DR who reiterates the grounds of appeal and submits that the respondents have chosen to rely upon the subsequent technical opinion of the Chief Chemist's CRCL. New Delhi. The said Chief Chemist opinion on classification is not binding in law as laboratory can only give composition etc. thereon and not any opinion on tariff classification. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation with intent to evade duty on the part of the assessee. The above findings of the Collector are not legally correct and proper, as the assessee has suppressed the fact that the said chemical acts as an anchoring agent" Sd/- 10-2-1993 (B.C. Rastogi) Member Central Board of Excise and Customs The learned Consultant submits that since this represents additional ground raised by the Revenue as late as 11-2-1993 whereas the order impugned was passed on 26-12-1991, therefore, the said raising of additional ground by this so called corrigendum in fact constitutes raising a fresh ground and since this ground has been raised after expiry of one year from the date of passing of the said order in original impugned, therefore is hit by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts as a wetting out agent. He submits that classification if any has to be done on the product in the form in which it is removed from the factory premises and not as to how it is used after clearance. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made and records of the case. On consideration of the preliminary objection raised by the learned Consultant we are of the considered view that the said corrigendum extracted above only constitutes a fresh ground on limitation under the Review procedure undertaken by the Board. Since this corrigendum was issued after one year that is the time limit prescribed under Section 35E, therefore, the Collector had no jurisdiction and authority to file Review appeal on the question of limitation adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
