9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 782X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, Ashok Jindal, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : None, for the Appellant. Shri Manish Mohan, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)]. The facts giving arise these two appeals are, in brief, as under :- 1.1 The appellant are manufacturer of Textile fabrics coated, impregnated or covered with plastics. The dispute in the case is in respect of the items sold as Tarpaulins, Vehicle Covers, Tents etc. which are nothing but HDPE fabrics coated with LDPE preparations. The appellant had filed a classification list effective from 1-4-1990 claiming the classification of these goods under sub-heading 5903.21 of the Central Excise Tariff chargeable to duty at Nil rate in respect of clearances under Chapter X Procedure of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was confirmed. On appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) against this order the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal No. BPS/17(MOD/773/2002 dated 31-12-2002 upheld the Assistant Commissioner s order. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. E/893/2003 has been filed. 2. None appeared for the appellant though there are written submissions of the appellant on record. 3 Heard the learned SDR. 4. Shri Manish Mohan, the learned SDR, defended the impugned orders-in-appeal by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and pleaded that the goods are correctly classifiable under Heading 3923.90 of the Tariff, that while the show-cause notice dated 5-8-1991 is within the normal limitation period, in respect of the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the classification of the goods, in question, had been approved under sub-heading 5903.21 of the Tariff vide Assistant Commissioner s order dated 30-4-1990 in respect of the classification list effective from 1-4-1990 and this order of the Assistant Commissioner has not been reviewed, though there is a specific provision for the same, we are of the view that the duty demand for the period from February 91 to July 91 is not sustainable and the same is set aside. 6. However, so far as the second duty demand for the period from August 91 to March 93 is concerned, we find that for this period the assessments had been made provisional and after issue of the Board s Order No. 28/4/94-CX., dated 1-4-1994 under Section 37B of the Central Excise A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
