9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (6) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment issued a show cause notice to the appellants asking them to show cause why the goods should not be reclassified under Tariff Item 52 CET. After due process the Assistant Collector passed orders classifying the goods under Tariff Item 52. 2. The respondents succeeded in their appeal before the Coltector of Central Excise (Appeals). Hence these two appeals filed by Revenue. 3. We heard both the appeals together as both involve the same question as to whether the goods are fasteners or not. Appeal No. 2213 pertains to the period ending 28-2-1986 involving rival entries 68 and 52 whereas appeal No. 2214 pertains to the period 1986 to 1987 involving classification under the new tariff. 4. Shri V.M. Doiphode, the learned SDR submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pleaded that rectification list can have only prospective effect and not retrospective. In support of his arguments he cited 1988 (38) E.L.T. 684 (Tribunal) in Sunraj Exports Ltd. v. Collector of Customs. He also submitted that judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Ideal Java (etc.) is the only judgment applicable to the facts of this matter and that the Tribunal is bound by it. He submitted that no demand for duty has been raised but that in any event a demand under Section 11A can be only for 6 months as the respondents have an approved classification list. He relied on a judgment of the Tribunal reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 94 (Trib.) Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Gurmukh Singh & Sons, Ludhiana in support of his arguments. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection XVI. Therefore, according to him, the goods have to be classified where they fall 8. We have considered the arguments of both sides and perused the case law cited by both sides. During the course of the arguments the learned Representative of the respondents stated that he would not press the argument that the Assistant Collector cannot review the classification list already approved by him. Therefore, we are not examining it. 9. We examined the samples of the goods brought to the Court. As the Assistant Collector's order itself makes clear, the goods before us are, as emphasised by Shri Jain, parts of valves and cocks. Three such products are involved here. They are glandnut, bonnet and union. It is the case of the Department that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
