9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be remitted to the Tribunal for deciding the question of classification and other issues. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The Tribunal to decide the contention raised by the respondents with regard to classification of the goods in question and other issues, if any. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants had filed classification list effective from 1-3-89 (Range Sl. No. 3/MGE/89). In column 6 of the said classification list, they have described the excisable goods manufactured by them intended to be removed from the factory as Parts suitable for use solely or principally with the apparatus of Heading Nos. 85.25 to 85.29 namely Deflection com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of mistake was rejected by the Tribunal under Misc. Order No. 41/2001-B, dated 4-5-2001. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut filed Civil Appeal Nos. 8113-8114/2001 before the Hon ble Supreme Court by which the order of the Tribunal was set aside and the case was remitted to the Tribunal for deciding the question of classification and other issues. 3. None appeared for the appellants despite the fact that the case was on Board. No application for any adjournment was received. Therefore, the case was taken up for decision on merits. 4. Shri Vikas Kumar, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue, pleaded that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ITW Signode India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [2003 (15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectly classifiable under Heading 8504.00 and the differential duty has been correctly demanded. 5. We find the Tribunal in its Final Order No. 1435/99-B, dated 23-12-99 had allowed the appeal only on one ground that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, in CCE, Baroda v. Cotspun Ltd. [1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) = 1999 (34) RLT 709], the demand was held time-bar. Consequent to retrospective amendment of Section 11A by Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000, if the classification is found otherwise than what has been approved, then the department is free to demand duty short paid from the assessee with retrospective effect. The classification of the disputed items namely EHT transformer, Line Driver transformer and SMPS transformer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
