9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore - 1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. 2. The respondent-Company submitted its repre sentation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax. 3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty alrea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. The claim was rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appell ants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Depart ment's stands it should have challenged the classifi cation and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
