9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aiming Pharma Yeast as non-excisable. The said classification lists were approved modifying the rate of duty at 12% ad valorem. The Range Officer issued a show cause notice to the assessee asking them to show cause as to why duty amounting to Rs. 8,448/- being the duty on 4,400 kgs. Pharma Yeast cleared during the period from April, 86 to September, 86 should not be demanded under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The assessee paid the duty under protest on 31-10-86 and submitted a representation dated 21-1-87 claiming that Chapter 21 of the Tariff did not cover Yeast put up as medicament. On this ground they prayed that the amount of duty paid by them under protest may be refunded. The Assistant Collector held that the class ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion that the classification list had been approved finally under heading 3003.30 was not correct since in a similar case the approval under the said heading had been challenged by the Assistant Collector in appeal before the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) vide his letter dated 29-1-88. It has been contended that classification of the goods under sub-heading 3003.30 was erroneous since Pharma Yeast was correctly classifiable under sub-heading 2102.10. On the grounds that approval granted to a classification list takes effect only prospectively and duty paid in terms of an approved classification list cannot be withdrawn through a refund claim, the appellants have prayed that the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) directing the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al determination cannot be re-opened or reviewed by the same authority and therefore an assessee who does not agree with a decision on a classification list has to challenge it directly by appealing against it and not indirectly by filing a refund claim. Paras 6(g)(i) to (l) of the said decision being relevant are reproduced below : - (i) for the reasons set forth by me in extenso in the decisions reported in 1984 (16) E.L.T. 389 (Tribunal) Entremonde Polycoaters Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune and 1985 (22) E.L.T. 795 (Rainbow Industries v. Collector of Central Excises), I am unable to persuade myself to hold that where the classification or assessable value had been determined prior to any assessment whatsoever in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
