9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upon in the orders of the lower authorities. 2. Appellant, M/S S Narendra kumar & Co, is a manufacturer of henna powder cleared in unit packs of 25/50/100 grams. Claiming to have taken recourse to the decision of the Tribunal in Henna Export Corporation v. Collector of Central Excise [1993 67 ELT 907 Tribunal] which laid down the distinction for classification under heading no. 14041019, for clearance in bluk and heading no. 33059040, pertaining to clearance in unit packs as hair dye, the appellant had been discharging duty liability under the former. 3. The original authority confirmed demand of on the clearances effected between June 2006 and March 2007 under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 with appropriate interest, while I i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r classification of the imported goods Palm Kernal Acid Oil can now be made under CTH 1515 when the original contest was for classification of the imported goods under either CTH 3823 19 00 or CTH 1513 29 10 before the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority. The dispute taken before the first appellate authority by the importer (present respondent) was decided under CTH 3823 19 00 after getting further testing of the sample of imported goods. Even after receipt of the subsequent test report, as per the directions of first appellate authority it was not agitated by the Revenue that classification of the imported goods could be other than CTH 3823 19 00 or CTH 1513 29 10. When an issue is not the subject matter of the show c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of C. Ex., Calcutta-II reported in 2003 (154) E.LT. 106 (Tri-Kolkata), Airport Authority of India v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported in 2003 (152). E.L.T 97 (Tri. -Del.) and Mawana Steels (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur reported in 2002 (148) EL.T. 375 (Tri-Dei.) wherein it was held that the adjudicating authority cannot travel beyond the show cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) considering the decision cited by the appellant held that these decisions are not relevant to the facts of the case. Therefore, he classified the impugned goods under Chapter Sub-heading 4010.90. Aggrieved from the said order the appellants are in appeal before this Tribunal on the ground that Commissioner (Appeals) has no power t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the third show cause notice was dated 18-11-1999, which related to the period July, 1999 to September, 1999. This difference is required to be kept in mind because under the first show cause notice dated 21-5-1999, the Department has invoked the extended period of limitation, whereas the second and the third show cause notices dated 30-9-1999 and 18-11-1999 were for the periods April, 1999 to June, 1999 and July, 1999 to September, 1999 respectively, which were within limitation. 7. Considering the above, the impugned order does not have the sanctity of law. Admittedly, the show cause notice itself has been disregarded by the lower authorities and the issue raised by the appellant on the scope of classification requires reconsideration. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
