9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime Recorder (claimed classification under sub-heading no. 9106.00), Line Converter/ Concentrator (claimed classification under sub-heading no. 8473.00) and Printer (claimed classification under sub-heading no. 9106.00). The respondent also claimed the small scale exemption as was admissible at the relevant time under Notification No. 175/86 dated 01-03-1986. The department was of the view to classify all these products as Computer, under Heading No. 8471 and to deny the said small scale exemption. On this contention, the department was issuing periodical show cause notice for denial of aforesaid small scale exemption because the matter was under dispute as the department had filed review applications and appeals against the classification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (w.e.f. 04-04-97) and pertains to provisional assessment order dated 07-09-1993, 18-10-1995, 11-03-1996, 26-03-1996 and 30-03-1996. Thus the classification lists approved in Order-in-Original dated 31-07-1997 are different from the classification list pertaining to the Order-in-Original dated 27-07-1993. Being aggrieved by the impugned order revenue filed this appeal. 3. Shri H.M. Dixit, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue (appellant) reiterating the grounds of the appeal, submits that the issue on merit is pending in the appeal before the Tribunal New Delhi. Therefore, this appeal may be decided on the merit of classification. On query from the bench, Ld. A.R. could not produce any status of appeal, despite th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise is legal and proper in view of the appeal pending before Tribunal against Order-in-Appeal No. PKS/68/94/B-II dated 06-04-94 setting aside Assistant Commissioners order dated 27-08-93. Revenue has also argued that the Assistant Commissioner in his OIO No. V(90)17-CLPL-13/90 dated 27-08-93 has properly classified the disputed goods under S.H.N. 84714-.00. I find that in the instant appeal the Review Application is filed against OIO No. 93/10/2003-04 reveals that Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise in his findings has categorically intentioned that he has made base from OIA No. ZBN/375/M-V/2001 dated 04-7-2001. He has also mentioned that said OIA dated 4-7-2001 has been accepted by Commr., Cen.Ex. on 26-9-2001 i.e. the issue has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .f. 10-05-95), 1/96-97 (w.e.f. 01-04-96), 1/97-98 (w.e.f. 04-04-97) and pertains to provisional assessment order dated 07-09-1993, 18-10-1995, 11-03-1996, 26-03-1996 and 30-03-1996. In the other words, the Order in Original dated 31-7-97 pertains to different classification lists for different periods and is not relating to period covered by Order-in-Original dated 27-8-93. Hence there is no overlapping of period or classification lists involved. As discussed in the forgoings the Order in Appeal dated 04-7-2001 is made based by lower authority while finalizing the pending 19 show cause notices vide order in original dated 19-3-2003, hence there is no infirmity in the following said order-in-Appeal which has attained finality. Thus, order in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
