TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d goods under the chapter heading 5909 . Consequently, the benefit of Notification No.175/86 dated 01.03.1986 was also allowed. In the present case also the goods are exclusively used for industrial purpose and accordingly the goods are rightly classifiable under the chapter heading 5909. Consequently, the benefit of Notification 175/86 dated 01/03.86 was also available to them. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The entire issue was known to the department and there was no suppression fact involved in this case. Hence, the Notice issued beyond the period of one year was hit by limitation and liable to be set aside on this ground also. However, since on merits itself the demand is not sustainable, there is no need to set aside the demand on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation upto the Tribunal level. The present appeal is against the demand issued vide show cause notice dated 11.11.1993. The Appellant stated that the demand in this notice covers the period ending upto July 91. Although the entire matter was within the knowledge of the department and the classification list was approved by extending the benefit of Notification 175/86 dated 01/03/86, the demand was issued beyond the period of one year by invoking suppression of fact, which is not sustainable. 4. The Appellant stated that the goods manufactured by them are exclusively used for industrial purpose only. The impugned goods used exclusively for industrial purpose, in cable industries, are rightly classifiable under chapter heading 5909 only. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same has become final. 6 . This Court in a catena of cases has consistently taken the view that if an earlier order is not appealed against by the Revenue and the same has attained finality, then it is not open to the Revenue to accept judgment/order on the same question in the case of one assessee and question its correctness in the case of some other assessees. The Revenue cannot pick and choose. [See : Union of India Others v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal Another [2001 (10) SCC 231]; Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Tata Engineering Locomotives Co. Ltd. [2003 (158) E.L.T. 130 (S.C.)]; Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2005 (186) E.L.T. 266 (S.C.)]; Jayaswals Neco Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chapter heading 5909 . Consequently, the benefit of Notification No.175/86 dated 01.03.1986 was also allowed. In the present case also the goods are exclusively used for industrial purpose and accordingly the goods are rightly classifiable under the chapter heading 5909. Consequently, the benefit of Notification 175/86 dated 01/03.86 was also available to them. 10. The Appellant has raised the issue of limitation. We observe that the entire issue was known to the department and there was no suppression fact involved in this case. Hence, the Notice issued beyond the period of one year was hit by limitation and liable to be set aside on this ground also. However, since on merits itself the demand is not sustainable, there is no need to se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
