Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1999 (11) TMI 734

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d rods of Non-Alloy Steel Hot-Rolled (Iron and Steel Strips) of size width between 50 mm. to 198 mm. and thickness not exceeding 2.99 mm. under sub-heading No. 7214. 90. The Assistant Collector approved the classification list with the following remarks : Classification of goods at Sl. No. 4 of Classification list is not acceptable under Chapter 7214.90 @ Rs. 600/= P.M.T. B.E.D. in view of the fact that the department appears to have filed appeal against CEGAT Order Nos. E/216 to 379/1990-B1, dt. 20-12-90 before the Supreme Court of India. As such the said goods are liable for classification under Chapter 7211.59 as hot-rolled products not exceeding 5 mm. thickness attracting duty of Rs. 800/= per M.T. B.E.D. under Notification No. 60/9 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted that any order or decision passed under the Central Excise Act is an order passed by the authority as an adjudicating authority and hence it is appellable; that the approval given on classification list by the Assistant Collector is an order which is appellable. 4. On merit, the ld. D.R. mentioned that the impugned product had both rectangular cross-section and even thickness and width and relying on the decision in Garg Strips and Rolling Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E., Allahabad - 1995 (78) E.L.T. 93 (T), contended that the impugned product is classifiable under sub-heading 7211.59 of the Tariff. He also mentioned that appeal filed by M/s. Garg Strips and Rolling Mills against the said decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court as reported i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gainst Tribunal s order. He relied upon the decision in the case of U.O.I v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.). He also mentioned that the classification was revised only on the ground that the Appeal has been filed against the Tribunal s decision and as now the Supreme Court has dismissed the Department s appeal, the very basis of the Assistant Collector s order has gone away and as such the classification made by them under sub-heading 7214.90 is correct in law. The ld. Advocate also mentioned that after receipt of classification list on 3-4-92, the Respondents requested for a proper speaking and appellable order after observing the principles of natural justice; that they again submitted a detailed represen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... der as well as the revisional order cannot be sustained. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It is settled law that the approval of classification list is an appellable order as held by the Tribunal in Hooghly Dock and Port Engineers Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1988 (37) E.L.T. 430 (T). As per provisions of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, an appeal has to be filed within three months from the date of the communication of the order or decision to the aggrieved person. Proviso to Section 35, empowers the Commissioner (Appeals) to extend the period for a further period of three months if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal. In the present matter, it is not in disput .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e present matter. The Respondents in their letter dt. 6-4-92, after receipt of the approved Classification List has made a grievance of violation of principles of natural justice and absence of speaking order. The approval of Classification list is a quasi-judicial function and an appeal lies with the Collector (now Commissioner) Appeals. The Respondents did not file the appeal even within the extended period specified in Section 35 of the Act. The decision in the case of Spinning Accessories relied upon by the ld. Advocate, is also not applicable to the facts of the present case as the order was not incomplete and was passed at the appropriate place provided in the classification list. The time-limit for filing the appeal would run from th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates