9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be classified under Tariff Heading 3916 but not under Tariff Heading 3920.39 as claimed by the assessing officer. That order of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Apex Court - the issue of classification had attained finality, the Tribunal could not have ordered deposit of Rs. 15,00,000/- merely because the appellant had stated that the observation of the Tribunal in the case of Caprihans India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the learned counsel for the Respondent. Perused the Appeal. 2. The Appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law :- Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon ble Tribunal was justified in directing the Appellants to deposit Rs. 15,00,000/- under Section 35F of the Act? 3. By consent of the parties, the Appeal is taken up for final hearing and heard. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted the Appellant to deposit Rs.15,00,000/- inter alia on the ground that the appellant itself has claimed that the classification upheld by the CESTAT in the case of Caprihans India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise. Aurangabad reported in 2002 (145) E.L.T. 664 (Tri-Mumbai) which is upheld by the Apex Court [2008 (226) E.L.T. 18 (S.C.)] is not applicable to the case of the appellant. 5. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... classify the goods under Tariff Heading 3916. However, the Commissioner of Central Excise has chosen to classify the goods under Tariff Heading 3920.39. The question before the Tribunal was, whether the Commissioner was justified in classifying the goods under Tariff Heading 3920.39 in spite of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Caprihans India Ltd. (supra) which is upheld by the Apex Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
