9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (6) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, who accepted the petitioner's contention and held that the products would fall under Tariff Item 16-A. The department filed an appeal before the Tribunal at Delhi. The Tribunal reversed the order of the Appellate Collector on two grounds. The Tribunal relied on the report of a Chemical Examiner in which a finding is given by the Chemical Examiner that the product will not fall under Tariff Item 16-A. Secondly, the Tribunal held that the order passed by if on the same day in the case of M/s. Bharat Rubber Regenerating Company Ltd. [1984 (18) E.L.T. 85 (Tri.)] would apply to the petitioner also and consequently, the Collector's appeal was allowed. The Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 has been placed before me. I find that Raju, J. has placed reliance on the judgment of S. Ramalingam, J. in S Champalal v. Union of India [1991(52) E.L.T. 346(Madras)]. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the judgment will not apply to the present case as this will not fall under Section 35L of the Act. Under Section 35L(b) of the Act, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, this is not a case in which the rate of duty of excise is called in question nor is the valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ible piece of size 25 cm. x 34 cm. and it was composed of rubber carbon black and sulphur. The Appellate Collector also referred to the report in his order and placed reliance thereon. If the note had really been in existence in the report at that time, he would certainly have mentioned it. 6. Apart from that, the notewhich is appended to the report merely states that the product will not fall under Tariff Item 16A. It is not for the Chemical Examiner to give a finding on that question. The Chemical Examiner was only required to set out the composition of the product and the nature thereof. 7. Hence, then the note was sought to be relied on by the Appellate Tribunal, it ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istinguish his case from that of M/S. Bharat Rubber Regenerating Company Ltd., if that was so. 9. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the principles of natural Justice have not been followed and the order of the Appellate Tribunal is vitiated inasmuch as the petitioner has not been given proper opportunity to contest his case. The order of Raju, J. in W.P. No. 2921 of 1984 will not apply to the facts of this Case. Obviously, what was questioned in the writ petition before him was the order of the Appellate Tribunal on its merits. The learned Judge has taken the view that the writ petition was not maintainable. In the present case, the order of the Tribunal is vitiated for its failure to give sufficient opportunity to the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
