9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the dispute over classification but the Tribunal, indubitably, has. That finality can be shaken only by a reversal in the highest court of the land and, until then, the law settled by the Tribunal prevails; failure to recognise that finality places orders of original authority and first appellate authorities in peril and for consequences of breach of discipline. Thus, no case has been made out by Revenue for an alternate approach to the classification as settled - appeal dismissed. - EXCISE APPEAL NO: 1073 OF 2012 - A/85722/2022 - Dated:- 17-8-2022 - HON BLE MR ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri S Anatha Krishnan, Commissioner (AR) for the applicant appellant Shri Jitendra Motwani, Advocate for the respondent ORDER PER: C J MATHEW This appeal lies against order-in-original no. 7-8-9/CEX/2012 dated 16th March 2012 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I which dropped proceedings initiated in three show cause notices for recovery of differential duty of ₹ 13,42,18,149, ₹ 25,82,32,026 and ₹ 9,45,45,431 from M/s Britco Foods Company Ltd (now M/s Coca Cola India Pvt Ltd) for havi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder may have been imprecise in its elaboration of the law as settled. The scope of appellate remedy is unambiguously clear the challenge should be to an order for not being legal and proper and solecism in articulation or inaccuracies of expression are not sanctioned as grounds for appeal. There is no doubt that the Hon ble Supreme Court did not render a finality to the dispute over classification but the Tribunal, indubitably, has. That finality can be shaken only by a reversal in the highest court of the land and, until then, the law settled by the Tribunal prevails; failure to recognise that finality places orders of original authority and first appellate authorities in peril and for consequences of breach of discipline. We may recall to mind the observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Union Of India And Others v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation [1991 (55) ELT 433 SC] 6... we are not concerned here with the correctness or otherwise of their conclusion or of any factual malafides but with the fact that the officers, in reaching in their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders in regard to the same issue which were placed before them, one of the Collector (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne Nil 2108.90 - Other 20% Chapter heading 33.02 reads as follows : 33.02 Mixture of odoriferous substances and mixtures with a basis of one or more of these substances, of a kind used as raw materials in industry. 3302.10 - of a kind used in the food or beverage industry. 20% 3302.90 - Other 20% 6. The Assistant Commissioner has found it undisputed that the goods are based on odoriferous substances and there is no challenge to this finding. He has found that the goods are specifically covered by the terms of heading 3302.10 and not found it necessary to go beyond this. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not favoured relying upon the holding that dispute in classification has to be resolved on the material available on the basis of the tariff itself, that being the law of the land. He, however, overlooks the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Woodcraft Products Ltd. 1995 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em under heading 33.02. The corresponding headings in the tariff are 21.08 and 33.02. It is not possible for us to agree that the condition in heading 21.08, that the goods must not be elsewhere specified or included and applies to the chapter and not the tariff. We must therefore approve the finding of the Assistant Commissioner that by description of the tariff heading these goods are classifiable under heading 33.02. Even if we were to agree that this is not the case, and there is in fact a dispute between the two headings, the fact that heading 21.08 is a residuary heading, would require classification of the goods under heading 33.02. This is only, of some reason, they could not be classifiable under this heading or any other heading in the tariff that classification under heading 21.08 would be required to be considered. 10. The Commissioner (Appeals) says that since the product is in the nature of uniquely compounded formulation or preparations and not merely mixture with basis of one or more odoriferous substances as envisaged in chapter heading 3302. , the classification claimed by the appellant cannot be accepted. He finds the goods to be compound preparations, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
