9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Rajadas, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. These applications filed by M/s. Arunachala Gounder Textile Mills (P) Ltd. [appellants in E/1064/2004] and M/s. P.K.P.N. Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. [appellants in E/1085/2004] are for rectification of what is said to be apparent error in Final Order Nos. 811 813/2007 dated 3-7-2007 - 2007 (215) E.L.T. 190 (Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... escaped the attention of the Bench. Elaborating this point, learned counsel submits that the appellant s objection to classification of the subject goods under a heading not proposed in the show-cause notice was not considered. It is submitted that the relevant show-cause notices had proposed to classify the goods under Heading 56.06 of the CETA Schedule and that, without considering the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration to the submissions, we have found manifest error in Final Order Nos. 812 813/2007 - 2007 (215) E.L.T. 190 (Tribunal). It is a fact, not in dispute, that the proposal in the show-cause notices was to classify the yarn under Heading 56.06 of the CETA Schedule, notwithstanding the fact that the yarn was found, by chemical test, to be composed of 85% of cotton. The original authority and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessees, the Revenue has not stated any reason in support of classification of the yarn under Heading 56.06. This aspect did not enter into consideration of the Bench while passing the final order. 3. For the aforesaid reasons, we have to recall Final Order No. 812 813/2007 - 2007 (215) E.L.T. 190 (Tribunal) and take fresh decision on Appeal Nos. E/1064 1085/2004. Having already st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
