9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alore. 2. The appellants are the manufacturers of Printed Cartons, Unprinted Cartons, Printed Sleeves, Carton Labels, Vial Labels, Leaflets and Books, etc. Revenue proceeded against the appellant for failure to comply with the Central Excise procedures. In the Adjudication Order dated 2-12-1997, duty demand was confirmed. The appellant filed an appeal, which was rejected for failure to comply with the Interim Order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants approached CEGAT Madras, which remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals), in his order dated 19-3-2001, affirmed the classification of the products manufactured by the appellant as decided by the Original Authority. He held that no interest coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese circumstances, the extended period cannot be invoked. 4.1 The second point urged by the appellant is that the impugned products are classifiable under CSH 49.01.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 in view of Section Note 2 to Section VII of the Chapter 48. Further he relied on the following case-laws (i) Sri Kumar Agencies v. CCE, Bangalore - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 483 (Tribunal) (ii) CCE, Bangalore v. Reliance Printers - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 728 (Tribunal) When the learned SDR pointed out that classification was not an issue in the impugned order, the learned Advocate, urged that classification being a legal issue can be raised at appellate stages. He relied on the following case-laws. (i) Essco Sanitations v. CCE - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of the Tribunal in the case of Chetna Offset (cited supra) wherein these items have been classified under Chapter 48 only. This decision has relied on two others decisions of the Tribunal. The appellants actually accepted this classification and never challenged it. In view of the Tribunal's decision and also their acceptance, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the impugned goods are classifiable only under Chapter 48. At this stage, there is no justification for revising the classification of the impugned goods, as it is already settled by the decisions cited. The decision in the case of Reliance Printers is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the same deals with Printed Wrappers. Therefore, on the question of classi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
