9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order is in adjudication of 7 show-cause notices, 6 of which cover a total period from April, 2000 to February, 2002 and the 7th is of slightly different character covering the period December, 1995 to March, 2000. It is submitted by ld. Sr. Adv. that the same goods had been finally classified under Heading 52.06 by the apex Court for the month of March, 1990. It is submitted that the Tribunal s decision classifying the goods under the said Heading was upheld by the apex court in Commissioner v. Carborundum Universal Ltd. [2002 (142) E.L.T. A. 181 (S.C.)]. It is further submitted that, following the apex court s decision, the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped a demand as per Order-in-Appeal No. 61/2005 (M-1) and that the said appellate order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal filed by the assessee challenging the classification done by the Tribunal. It is pointed out that the lower authority squarely relied on the Tribunal s decision in Precision Rubber Industries (supra) and chose to classify the subject goods under Heading 52.06/52.07. Its order is not sustainable inasmuch as the operation of the Tribunal s decision in Precision Rubber Industries (supra) was stayed by the Apex Court. Yet another submission made by the ld. Counsel is that the Commissioner chose to quantify the duty amount with reference to certain Notifications without, again, putting the assessee to notice. Ld. Counsel has, therefore, claimed prima facie case for waiver and stay. 3. Ld. SDR has hotly countered the reliance placed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , that the subject goods are correctly classifiable under Heading 52.06/52.07 insofar as the period of dispute in this case is concerned. We think, at this stage, we need not examine the finer details of the submissions. However, one thing needs to be mentioned. It is not in dispute that the lower authority chose to quantify the demand of duty under a tariff entry not proposed by the department as also with reference to exemption Notifications behind the back of the assessee. Hence there seems to be prima facie case against the demand of duty as quantified by the Commissioner. We allow the present applications. Accordingly, there will be waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery in respect of the duty and penalty amounts. We are told that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
