TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he classification of the item Tarpaulin Fabrics falls under Tariff Heading 52.04 as claimed by the assessee or under sub-heading 5906.90 as claimed by the department. 3. Learned Advocate submits that the party was under the impression that the item is exempted in terms of classification sought by them and therefore they had not filed classification list and had not taken out licence in the matter. However, they have filed declaration by post which has not been accepted by the Commissioner to negate their contention on limitation. It is his submission that large number of such manufacturers were issued with show cause notice as many as 11 of them and common adjudication was taken-up by the Commissioner of C. EX., Chennai and few were tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner had not accepted their letters sent by Certificate of Posting, to plead time bar. 5. Learned SDR Shri Victor Thiagaraj opposes the prayer for remand on the ground that the present case is distinguishable with the matter remanded inasmuch as that present case clearly falls within the purview of CEGAT order on this very issue vide Order No. 1402/96, dated 3-8-1996 in the case of Bharat Textiles and Proofing Industries wherein the Tribunal had taken a view that impugned item is classifiable under Heading 59.06. He submits that the Bench is bound by the Tribunal order as held by the Tribunal itself in the case of Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE as reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 502. 6. Learned Counsel submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order being a non-speaking order. The Tribunal findings in paras 17 to 19 of cited case are reproduced herein below :- 17. We heard both sides and looked into the entire evidence including the citations and the Tribunal s case, we are totally satisfied that the main crux of the matter pertains to interpretation of Note 5 to Chapter 59 has not been looked into in the light of enormous evidence produced by the appellants which has been noted as in Order No. 8/97, dated 12-11-1997 in para 20 of the order which has been reproduced above. Ld. Commissioner had only referred to one piece of evidence that of report of Mantra dated 16-11-1995. Sr. Advocate also pointed out the discrepancies in reading this report. We do not express our opinion i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailed considered order by applying their mind fully to the submissions raised by the appellants individually. Thus, all these appeals are remanded to the respective adjudicating authorities for de novo consideration in the light of our above observations made; by setting aside the impugned orders." 8. We notice that in the present case also, the case was heard alongwith all the appeals of the cases passed by the Commissioner and he has followed the same pattern in giving a similar order and therefore the contention of the learned Advocate that present case is same with those batch matters appears to be correct. We are not differing with the Tribunal judgment cited by learned SDR. We are only directing the Commissioner to examine the evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
