2005 (4) TMI 499

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndent. [Order per : Moheb Ali M., Member (T)]. The above appeals were taken up together for disposal as the issue is common. Appeal E/l477/99 is filed by M/s. L.D. Textiles Industries Ltd. and Appeal E/1410/2000 is filed by the Revenue. Both the appeals are filed against the orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals), albeit by two different Commissioners. 2. In regard to the appeal of L. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d decision held that any demand raised in pursuance of a revised classification order would be only prospective. The Revenue s contention is that the Commissioner s reliance on this order of the Supreme Court is misplaced in view of the fact that the Finance Bill, 2000 provided validation of certain actions taken under Section 11A of Act 1 of 1944 under clause 106(1). Under this provision, the Cen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d by the appellant, L.D. Textiles Inds. Ltd. While deciding this matter, one Commissioner (Appeals) held that the goods are classifiable under Chapter Heading 55.05 whereas the other has remanded the matter with the above mentioned directions. The appellant, L.D. Textiles Inds. Ltd., argued that the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding the goods are classifiable under Chapter Heading 55. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X