9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carried 16% duty. The Tribunal vide its Final Order dated 19.3.1998 decided the issue by ordering the classification under Chapter Subheading 8448.00. Once the Tribunal issues its Order on 19.3.1998, it has to be given full execution both on the part of the Revenue as well as on the part of the appellant unless it is appealed against. The appellant s contention is that the Tribunal s Order will have only prospective operation is misplaced. Earlier for classification of the subject goods, the appeal was filed by the appellant; the Tribunal before admitting the appeal vide its Stay Order No.375/1996 dated 25.10.1996 asked the appellant to make a pre-deposit ₹ 8 lakhs. This pre-deposit cannot be refunded when there is further liabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled refund claim of ₹ 8 lakhs, which was sanctioned by Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise vide Order-in-Original Sl. No.34/2001 E.2 dated 5.12.2001. This order was challenged by the Revenue before Commissioner (A), who vide his order dated 21.3.2003 allowed Department s appeal and ordered recovery of ₹ 8 lakhs from the assessee-appellant. The assessee-appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal against this order passed by Commissioner (A). 2. The appellant has been represented by the learned advocate, Shri Prithviraj Choudhary and Revenue has been represented by learned AR, Shri Parashiva Murthy. 3. Based on the appeal memorandum, the learned advocate, for the appellant mainly submits as follows: (i) The CESTAT s or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri.-Mumbai) b. Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong vs. Woodcraft Products Ltd.: 2002 (143) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) c. Kirit Packaging Industries (P) Ltd. vs. Collector of C. Excise, Vadodara: 1994 (71) E.L.T. 369 (Tribunal) d. VBC Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India: 1999 (114) E.L.T. 378 (A.P.) 5. We have carefully considered the facts on record, the submissions of both sides and the case laws cited. 6. It is strange that the appellant instead of honouring the liability for classification of the goods under Chapter Heading 8448.00, is arguing that this classification would be valid only for prospective period. Earlier the matter was before CESTAT for deciding the classification of the goods, though appellant contended that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
