9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the said product vide order-in-original dated 9-2-1994 under sub-heading no. 2103.11 of the Central Excise Tariff, and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had set aside the same under his order-in-appeal dated 18-10-1994 classifying the product 'Pan Chutney' under sub-heading no. 2107.91 of the Tariff. In the meanwhile, demand show cause notice was issued on 7-9-1994 and after extending the benefit of small scale exemption notification no. 1/93-CE dated 28-2-1993, demand of Rs. 1,68,588.69 was confirmed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise under his above mentioned order-in-original dated 1-2-1995. Under the impugned order-in-appeal dated 27-10-1995, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) confirmed the classification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Order No. 1010/99-D dated 30-11-1999 [2000 (116) E.L.T. 585 (Tribunal)] in appellants' own case while disposing of the appeal no. C/2304/94-D. The order of the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise had been reviewed by the Collector of Central Excise and thus it was not a case of revision of approved classification list. He also submitted that the classification of 'Pan Chutney' already stands settled at the highest level by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He pleaded that as the matter has already been finally settled, there was no merit in this appeal. 3.We have carefully considered the matter. The issue of classification of the product 'Pan Chutney' has been settled by the Tribunal in the appellants' own case in appeal no. E/2304/94-D where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... age the classification hae been finally approved by the Department. In a case where the classification as placed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise is reviewed by the Collector of Cecntral Excise within the powers vested in him as per legal provisions applicable, it could not be said that the classification list has been approved by the Department. Thus, we do not consider that it is a case of review of the classification list already approved. The submissions made in this regard on behalf of the appellants had no merit and are rejected. 6.The case law cited on their behalf is not applicable to the facts before us. In the case of CCE, Bombay-II v. Dalal Plastic Corporation, 1999 (113) E.L.T. 857 (Tribunal) = 1999 (31) RLT 415 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position, it is not necessary to go into the controversy regarding classification. The appeals are allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. Consequential relief shall be accorded to the appellants. No order as to costs." A report relating to the admission of the appeals in question (Civil Appeal Nos. 3608-3609 of 1997) was published in Excise Law Times - 1999 (107) E.L.T. A62 The Appellate Tribunal in its order in question had held that unprocessed cotton/nylon woven carcass containing 32% cotton and 68% nylon approximately, are classifiable under Heading No. 59.09 of the Central Excise Tariff as more specific Heading than 54.08 ibid. The Appellate Tribunal further held that in case there has been suppression or mis-statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
