9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he penalty was to be treated as imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 instead of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as directed by the Dy. Commissioner. 2. The dispute has a somewhat chequred history. Briefly stated, on 30-3-1988 the Range Superintendent visited the appellant's premises and made enquiry about the activities being carried on therein. Later, a communication was received asking the appellant to apply for L-4 licence and observe all the required formalities of the Central Excise Rules on the ground that the appellant was manufacturing/refining Mutton Tallow falling under Chapter sub-heading 1501.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant took a stand that the product was Pig Fat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 7-7-1989 and remanded the matter for de novo decision. A demand notice however was issued on 6-11-1990 asking the appellant to pay duty of Rs. 2,50,435/- in the light of the order of the Assistant Collector dated 7-7-1989 (supra). Almost simultaneously, on 27-12-1990, on receipt of the above said remand order of the Collector (Appeals), the Assistant Collector issued a fresh memorandum to the appellant proposing classification of the product under sub-heading 1501.00. On 2-2-1994 the Assistant Collector again rejected the claim of the appellant and classified the product under sub-heading 1501.00. The appellant again preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and vide order dated 2-8-1994, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the point whether the demand can be sustained, it is evident that the duty has been demanded on the basis that the product is classifiable under sub-heading 1501.00 but in view of the categorical finding that the product is classifiable under sub-heading 0201.00, falling out of the purview of Chapter 15, it is clear that the impugned order fixing the appellant's liability towards excise duty cannot be sustained. It is true that in his order dated 24-11-1997 (supra), the Dy. Commissioner rejected the appellant s case on the ground that the product was Pig Fat falling under sub-heading 0201.00 and on appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), similar finding was recorded in appeal but these findings were recorded in the proceedings for assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
