TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der CET sub-heading 7008.10 as electric light bulbs, attracting nil rate of duty. The claims were rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the assessee is not eligible to seek refund of duty on the goods as they had discharged the duty liability in accordance with the approved classification list filed by the manufacturer at Mysore. The lower appellate authority has upheld the order of the Assistant Collector holding that it is not open to a purchaser to reopen the assessment finalised in terms of Section 11B (1). Hence these appeals. 2. None appeared for the appellants in spite of notice, hence we heard the learned DR and perused the records. 3. To understand the issue involved, we can do no better than to reproduce the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act on import and it was held that the customer or the purchaser can contest the levy of additional duty with reference to Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act vis-a-vis Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act. The main issue was the power of the Government to levy duty equivalent to Central Excise duty and in this context, the above observation was made, whereas, in the case before me, the basic question is whether under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the purchaser can have a locus standi with reference to the classification dispute between the manufacturer and the Department. In the circumstances the ratio of this case law will not mutatis mutandis apply to the issue for consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd has passed a reasoned order after going through the relevant Central Excise tariff, trade practice etc. with which I respectfully agree. No new evidence has been put forth before me to take a different view. In case the appellant is aggrieved on the classification of the subject goods, it was open for him to take up the matter with the assessee M/s. Metal Lamp Caps against whom the order-in-appeal referred to above was passed, to enable them to file an appeal against the impugned order. In the circumstances, I find no justification to deviate from the classification already decided and the related matters on the subject products. 4. We agree with the finding that it is not open to the purchaser of the goods to reopen the classificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
